Showing 1 - 4 of 4 Research Library Publications
Posted: | Daniel Jurich, Michelle Daniel, Karen E. Hauer, Christine Seibert, Latha Chandran, Arnyce R. Pock, Sara B. Fazio, Amy Fleming, Sally A. Santen

Teaching and Learning in Medicine: Volume 33 - Issue 4 - p 366-381

 

CSE scores for students from eight schools that moved Step 1 after core clerkships between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed in a pre-post format. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to quantify the effect of the curriculum on CSE performance. Additional analysis determined if clerkship order impacted clinical subject exam performance and whether the curriculum change resulted in more students scoring in the lowest percentiles before and after the curricular change.

Posted: | D. Jurich, S.A. Santen, M. Paniagua, A. Fleming, V. Harnik, A. Pock, A. Swan-Sein, M.A. Barone, M. Daniel

Academic Medicine: Volume 95 - Issue 1 - p 111-121

 

This paper investigates the effect of a change in the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 timing on Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, the effect of lag time on Step 2 CK performance, and the relationship of incoming Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) score to Step 2 CK performance pre and post change.

Posted: | E. C. Carey, M. Paniagua, L. J. Morrison, S. K. Levine, J. C. Klick, G. T. Buckholz, J. Rotella, J. Bruno, S. Liao, R. M. Arnold

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management: Volume 56, Issue 3, p371-378

 

This article reviews the USMLE step examinations to determine whether they test the palliative care (PC) knowledge necessary for graduating medical students and residents applying for licensure.

Posted: | R.A. Feinberg, D. Jurich, J. Lord, H. Case, J. Hawley

Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 2018 45:3, 381-387

 

This study uses item response data from the November–December 2014 and April 2015 NAVLE administrations (n =5,292), to conduct timing analyses comparing performance across several examinee subgroups. The results provide evidence that conditions were sufficient for most examinees, thereby supporting the current time limits. For the relatively few examinees who may have been impacted, results suggest the cause is not a bias with the test but rather the effect of poor pacing behavior combined with knowledge deficits.