The predictive validity of MCAT scores and undergraduate GPA for COMLEX-USA licensure exam performance of students enrolled in osteopathic medical schools.

IF 1.4 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-18 DOI:10.1515/jom-2023-0265
Kenneth D Royal, Christian Meyer, Erik Guercio, Mark Speicher, Joseph Flamini, Jeanne M Sandella, Tsung-Hsun Tsai, Cynthia A Searcy
{"title":"The predictive validity of MCAT scores and undergraduate GPA for COMLEX-USA licensure exam performance of students enrolled in osteopathic medical schools.","authors":"Kenneth D Royal, Christian Meyer, Erik Guercio, Mark Speicher, Joseph Flamini, Jeanne M Sandella, Tsung-Hsun Tsai, Cynthia A Searcy","doi":"10.1515/jom-2023-0265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) medical students account for more than 25 % of all medical students in the United States.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study examined the predictive validity of Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) total scores and cumulative undergraduate grade point averages (UGPAs) for performance on the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) Level 1 and Level 2-CE (Cognitive Evaluation) licensure examinations administered by the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME). Additionally, the study examined the degree to which MCAT total scores and UGPAs provide comparable prediction of student performance by key sociodemographic variables.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study involved a collaborative effort between the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) and the NBOME. Data were examined for 39 accredited DO-granting medical schools in the United States during the 2017 application cycle. Researchers utilized three regression models that included MCAT total scores, cumulative UGPA, and combined MCAT total scores and cumulative UGPA to determine predictive validity. Researchers also examined the comparability of prediction for sociodemographic variables by examining the differences between observed and predicted error for both scores and pass/fail success rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Medium to large correlations were discernible between MCAT total scores, UGPA, and COMLEX-USA examination outcomes. For both COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE scores and pass/fail outcomes, MCAT scores alone provided superior predictive value to UGPA alone. However, MCAT scores and UGPA utilized in conjunction provided the best predictive value. When predicting both licensure examination scores and pass/fail outcomes by sociodemographic variables, all three models provided comparable predictive accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings from this comprehensive study of DO-granting medical schools provide evidence for the value-added benefit of taking MCAT scores and UGPA into consideration, particularly when these measures are utilized in conjunction. Further, findings provide evidence indicating that individuals from different sociodemographic backgrounds who enter medical school with similar MCAT scores and UGPA perform similarly on licensure examination outcome measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":36050,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2023-0265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Osteopathic (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine [DO]) medical students account for more than 25 % of all medical students in the United States.

Objectives: This study examined the predictive validity of Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) total scores and cumulative undergraduate grade point averages (UGPAs) for performance on the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States (COMLEX-USA) Level 1 and Level 2-CE (Cognitive Evaluation) licensure examinations administered by the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (NBOME). Additionally, the study examined the degree to which MCAT total scores and UGPAs provide comparable prediction of student performance by key sociodemographic variables.

Methods: This study involved a collaborative effort between the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine (AACOM) and the NBOME. Data were examined for 39 accredited DO-granting medical schools in the United States during the 2017 application cycle. Researchers utilized three regression models that included MCAT total scores, cumulative UGPA, and combined MCAT total scores and cumulative UGPA to determine predictive validity. Researchers also examined the comparability of prediction for sociodemographic variables by examining the differences between observed and predicted error for both scores and pass/fail success rates.

Results: Medium to large correlations were discernible between MCAT total scores, UGPA, and COMLEX-USA examination outcomes. For both COMLEX-USA Level 1 and Level 2-CE scores and pass/fail outcomes, MCAT scores alone provided superior predictive value to UGPA alone. However, MCAT scores and UGPA utilized in conjunction provided the best predictive value. When predicting both licensure examination scores and pass/fail outcomes by sociodemographic variables, all three models provided comparable predictive accuracy.

Conclusions: Findings from this comprehensive study of DO-granting medical schools provide evidence for the value-added benefit of taking MCAT scores and UGPA into consideration, particularly when these measures are utilized in conjunction. Further, findings provide evidence indicating that individuals from different sociodemographic backgrounds who enter medical school with similar MCAT scores and UGPA perform similarly on licensure examination outcome measures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
骨科医学院学生的 MCAT 分数和本科 GPA 对 COMLEX-USA 执业资格考试成绩的预测有效性。
背景:在美国,骨科(骨科医学博士)医学生占医学生总数的 25% 以上:本研究探讨了医学院入学考试(MCAT)总分和本科生累积平均学分绩点(UGPA)对美国骨科医学考试委员会(NBOME)举办的美国骨科医学执照综合考试(COMLEX-USA)一级和二级-CE(认知评估)执照考试成绩的预测有效性。此外,该研究还考察了 MCAT 总分和 UGPA 在多大程度上可以通过关键的社会人口变量来预测学生的成绩:本研究由美国医学院协会(AAMC)、美国骨科医学院协会(AACOM)和美国国家医学考试委员会(NBOME)合作进行。在2017年申请周期内,研究人员对美国39所经认可的授予直博学位的医学院进行了数据调查。研究人员使用了三个回归模型,包括 MCAT 总分、累计 UGPA 以及 MCAT 总分和累计 UGPA 的组合,以确定预测有效性。研究人员还通过研究分数和及格/不及格成功率的观察误差与预测误差之间的差异,检验了社会人口变量预测的可比性:MCAT总分、UGPA和COMLEX-USA考试结果之间存在中到较大的相关性。对于 COMLEX-USA 1 级和 2 级-CE 分数以及及格/不及格结果,单凭 MCAT 分数的预测价值优于单凭 UGPA 的预测价值。然而,MCAT 分数和 UGPA 结合使用则具有最佳预测价值。在通过社会人口变量预测执业资格考试成绩和及格/不及格结果时,所有三个模型的预测准确性相当:这项对授予博士学位的医学院校进行的综合研究结果证明,将 MCAT 分数和 UGPA 考虑在内具有增值效益,尤其是当这些指标结合使用时。此外,研究结果还提供了证据,表明来自不同社会人口背景、以相似的 MCAT 分数和 UGPA 进入医学院的学生在执业资格考试结果测量中的表现相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Health Professions-Complementary and Manual Therapy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
118
期刊最新文献
Comparing cranial suture interdigitation in humans and non-human primates: unearthing links to osteopathic cranial concept. Protecting the profession: lessons from the recent physician scandals. The rise of advanced practice provider independence bills: a misguided attempt to address the physician shortage. Analysis of self-reported confidence in independent prescribing among osteopathic medical graduating seniors. Foot and ankle fellowship-trained osteopathic orthopaedic surgeons: a review, analysis, and understanding of current trends.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1