↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of medical school clerkship performance: a multispecialty longitudinal analysis of standardized examination scores and clinical assessments

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictors of medical school clerkship performance: a multispecialty longitudinal analysis of standardized examination scores and clinical assessments
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0652-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Petra M. Casey, Brian A. Palmer, Geoffrey B. Thompson, Torrey A. Laack, Matthew R. Thomas, Martha F. Hartz, Jani R. Jensen, Benjamin J. Sandefur, Julie E. Hammack, Jerry W. Swanson, Robert D. Sheeler, Joseph P. Grande

Abstract

Evidence suggests that poor performance on standardized tests before and early in medical school is associated with poor performance on standardized tests later in medical school and beyond. This study aimed to explore relationships between standardized examination scores (before and during medical school) with test and clinical performance across all core clinical clerkships. We evaluated characteristics of 435 students at Mayo Medical School (MMS) who matriculated 2000-2009 and for whom undergraduate grade point average, medical college aptitude test (MCAT), medical school standardized tests (United States Medical Licensing Examination [USMLE] 1 and 2; National Board of Medical Examiners [NBME] subject examination), and faculty assessments were available. We assessed the correlation between scores and assessments and determined USMLE 1 cutoffs predictive of poor performance (≤10th percentile) on the NBME examinations. We also compared the mean faculty assessment scores of MMS students vs visiting students, and for the NBME, we determined the percentage of MMS students who scored at or below the tenth percentile of first-time national examinees. MCAT scores correlated robustly with USMLE 1 and 2, and USMLE 1 and 2 independently predicted NBME scores in all clerkships. USMLE 1 cutoffs corresponding to poor NBME performance ranged from 220 to 223. USMLE 1 scores were similar among MMS and visiting students. For most academic years and clerkships, NBME scores were similar for MMS students vs all first-time examinees. MCAT, USMLE 1 and 2, and subsequent clinical performance parameters were correlated with NBME scores across all core clerkships. Even more interestingly, faculty assessments correlated with NBME scores, affirming patient care as examination preparation. USMLE 1 scores identified students at risk of poor performance on NBME subject examinations, facilitating and supporting implementation of remediation before the clinical years. MMS students were representative of medical students across the nation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 11%
Researcher 5 7%
Professor 4 5%
Other 20 27%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 February 2019.
All research outputs
#14,261,557
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,966
of 3,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,871
of 299,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#48
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.