DO与MD学生基础科学知识的比较

G. Davis, Gregory G Gayer
{"title":"DO与MD学生基础科学知识的比较","authors":"G. Davis, Gregory G Gayer","doi":"10.7556/jaoa.2017.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Context: With the coming single accreditation system for graduate medical education, medical educators may wonder whether knowledge in basic sciences is equivalent for osteopathic and allopathic medical students. Objective: To examine whether medical students’ basic science knowledge is the same among osteopathic and allopathic medical students. Methods: A dataset of the Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine-CA student records from the classes of 2013, 2014, and 2015 and the national cohort of National Board of Medical Examiners Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (NBME-CBSE) parameters for MD students were used. Models of the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination-USA (COMLEX-USA) Level 1 scores were fit using linear and logistic regression. The models included variables used in both osteopathic and allopathic medical professions to predict COMLEX-USA outcomes, such as Medical College Admission Test biology scores, preclinical grade point average, number of undergraduate science units, and scores on the NBME-CBSE. Regression statistics were studied to compare the effectiveness of models that included or excluded NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores. Variance inflation factor was used to investigate multicollinearity. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to show the effectiveness of NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 pass/fail outcomes. A t test at 99% level was used to compare mean NBME-CBSE scores with the national cohort. Results: A total of 390 student records were analyzed. Scores on the NBME-CBSE were found to be an effective predictor of COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores (P<.001). The pass/fail outcome on COMLEX-USA Level 1 was also well predicted by NBME-CBSE scores (P<.001). No significant difference was found in performance on the NBME-CBSE between osteopathic and allopathic medical students (P=.322). Conclusion: As an examination constructed to assess the basic science knowledge of allopathic medical students, the NBME-CBSE is effective at predicting performance on COMLEX-USA Level 1. In addition, osteopathic medical students performed the same as allopathic medical students on the NBME-CBSE. The results imply that the same basic science knowledge is expected for DO and MD students.","PeriodicalId":16639,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","volume":"3 1","pages":"114 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Basic Science Knowledge Between DO and MD Students\",\"authors\":\"G. Davis, Gregory G Gayer\",\"doi\":\"10.7556/jaoa.2017.022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Context: With the coming single accreditation system for graduate medical education, medical educators may wonder whether knowledge in basic sciences is equivalent for osteopathic and allopathic medical students. Objective: To examine whether medical students’ basic science knowledge is the same among osteopathic and allopathic medical students. Methods: A dataset of the Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine-CA student records from the classes of 2013, 2014, and 2015 and the national cohort of National Board of Medical Examiners Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (NBME-CBSE) parameters for MD students were used. Models of the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination-USA (COMLEX-USA) Level 1 scores were fit using linear and logistic regression. The models included variables used in both osteopathic and allopathic medical professions to predict COMLEX-USA outcomes, such as Medical College Admission Test biology scores, preclinical grade point average, number of undergraduate science units, and scores on the NBME-CBSE. Regression statistics were studied to compare the effectiveness of models that included or excluded NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores. Variance inflation factor was used to investigate multicollinearity. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to show the effectiveness of NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 pass/fail outcomes. A t test at 99% level was used to compare mean NBME-CBSE scores with the national cohort. Results: A total of 390 student records were analyzed. Scores on the NBME-CBSE were found to be an effective predictor of COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores (P<.001). The pass/fail outcome on COMLEX-USA Level 1 was also well predicted by NBME-CBSE scores (P<.001). No significant difference was found in performance on the NBME-CBSE between osteopathic and allopathic medical students (P=.322). Conclusion: As an examination constructed to assess the basic science knowledge of allopathic medical students, the NBME-CBSE is effective at predicting performance on COMLEX-USA Level 1. In addition, osteopathic medical students performed the same as allopathic medical students on the NBME-CBSE. The results imply that the same basic science knowledge is expected for DO and MD students.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"114 - 123\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Journal of Osteopathic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2017.022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Journal of Osteopathic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2017.022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

背景:随着即将到来的研究生医学教育单一认证制度,医学教育者可能会怀疑,对于整骨疗法和对抗疗法医学学生来说,基础科学知识是否等同。目的:了解骨科医学生与对抗疗法医学生的基础科学知识是否相同。方法:采用图罗大学骨病医学学院2013、2014、2015级学生记录数据集和美国国家医学检验委员会医学硕士学生综合基础科学考试(NBME-CBSE)参数全国队列数据。采用线性和逻辑回归对美国综合骨科医师执照考试(complex - usa) 1级分数模型进行拟合。这些模型包括骨科和对抗疗法医学专业中用于预测complex - usa结果的变量,如医学院入学考试生物学分数、临床前平均绩点、本科理科单元数和NBME-CBSE分数。研究回归统计来比较包括或不包括NBME-CBSE分数的模型在预测complex - usa一级分数方面的有效性。方差膨胀因子用于多重共线性分析。使用受试者工作特征曲线来显示NBME-CBSE评分在预测complex - usa 1级合格/不合格结果方面的有效性。采用99%水平的t检验比较NBME-CBSE平均分与全国队列的比较。结果:共分析学生档案390份。NBME-CBSE评分被发现是complex - usa一级评分的有效预测因子(P< 0.001)。NBME-CBSE评分也能很好地预测complex - usa Level 1的及格/不及格结果(P< 0.001)。骨科和对抗疗法医学生在NBME-CBSE上的表现无显著差异(P=.322)。结论:NBME-CBSE作为一种评估对抗疗法医学生基础科学知识的测验,能有效预测其在complex - usa Level 1中的表现。此外,整骨疗法医学生在NBME-CBSE上的表现与对抗疗法医学生相同。研究结果表明,博士生和博士生需要具备相同的基础科学知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of Basic Science Knowledge Between DO and MD Students
Abstract Context: With the coming single accreditation system for graduate medical education, medical educators may wonder whether knowledge in basic sciences is equivalent for osteopathic and allopathic medical students. Objective: To examine whether medical students’ basic science knowledge is the same among osteopathic and allopathic medical students. Methods: A dataset of the Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine-CA student records from the classes of 2013, 2014, and 2015 and the national cohort of National Board of Medical Examiners Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (NBME-CBSE) parameters for MD students were used. Models of the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination-USA (COMLEX-USA) Level 1 scores were fit using linear and logistic regression. The models included variables used in both osteopathic and allopathic medical professions to predict COMLEX-USA outcomes, such as Medical College Admission Test biology scores, preclinical grade point average, number of undergraduate science units, and scores on the NBME-CBSE. Regression statistics were studied to compare the effectiveness of models that included or excluded NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores. Variance inflation factor was used to investigate multicollinearity. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to show the effectiveness of NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 pass/fail outcomes. A t test at 99% level was used to compare mean NBME-CBSE scores with the national cohort. Results: A total of 390 student records were analyzed. Scores on the NBME-CBSE were found to be an effective predictor of COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores (P<.001). The pass/fail outcome on COMLEX-USA Level 1 was also well predicted by NBME-CBSE scores (P<.001). No significant difference was found in performance on the NBME-CBSE between osteopathic and allopathic medical students (P=.322). Conclusion: As an examination constructed to assess the basic science knowledge of allopathic medical students, the NBME-CBSE is effective at predicting performance on COMLEX-USA Level 1. In addition, osteopathic medical students performed the same as allopathic medical students on the NBME-CBSE. The results imply that the same basic science knowledge is expected for DO and MD students.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Spontaneous neonatal subcutaneous emphysema: analysis of neonatal management Further insight on AOA ophthalmology residency program closure data Cranial osteopathic techniques and electroencephalogram (EEG) alpha power: a controlled crossover trial Response to “Further insight on AOA ophthalmology residency program closure data” UGRC 2021 recommendations on GME transition: pros and cons, opportunities and limitations
×
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