Background: For future physicians, residency programs offer necessary extended training in specific medical specialties. Medical schools benefit from an understanding of factors that lead their students to match into certain residency specialties. One such factor, often used during the residency application process, is scores on the USA Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). Objectives: To determine the relationship between USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores and students’ residency specialty match, and the association between both USMLE scores and state of legal residency (Minnesota) at the time of admission with students staying in-state or leaving the state for residency program. Design: USMLE scores and residency match data were analyzed from five graduating classes of students at the University of Minnesota Medical School (N = 1054). Results: A MANOVA found significant differences (p < 0.001) between residency specialties and both USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, as well as the combination of the two. Students who matched in Dermatology had the highest mean USMLE scores overall, while students who matched in Family Medicine had the lowest mean scores. Students who went out of state for residency had significantly higher Step 1 scores (p = 0.027) than students who stayed in-state for residency, while there was no significant difference between the groups for Step 2 scores. A significant positive association was found between a student who applied as a legal resident of Minnesota and whether the student stayed in Minnesota for their residency program. Conclusions: Residency specialty match was significantly associated with USMLE Step 1 and USMLE Step 2 CK scores, as was staying in-state or leaving the state for residency. Students who were legal residents of the state at the time of application were more likely to stay in-state for residency, regardless of USMLE score. Abbreviations: CK: Clinical knowledge; COMLEX: Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination; GME: Graduate medical education; NRMP: National Resident Matching Program; UME: Undergraduate medical education; USMLE: United States Medical Licensing Examination

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to determine the associations and predictive values of Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) component and composite scores prior to 2015 with U.S. Medical Licensure Exam (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores, with a focus on whether students scoring low on the MCAT were particularly likely to continue to score low on the USMLE exams.MethodMultiple linear regression, correlation, and chi-square analyses were performed to determine the relationship between MCAT component and composite scores and USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores from five graduating classes (2011–2015) at the University of Minnesota Medical School (N=1,065).ResultsThe multiple linear regression analyses were both significant (p<0.001). The three MCAT component scores together explained 17.7% of the variance in Step 1 scores (p<0.001) and 12.0% of the variance in Step 2 CK scores (p<0.001). In the chi-square analyses, significant, albeit weak associations were observed between almost all MCAT component scores and USMLE scores (Cramer's V ranged from 0.05 to 0.24).DiscussionEach of the MCAT component scores was significantly associated with USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores, although the effect size was small. Being in the top or bottom scoring range of the MCAT exam was predictive of being in the top or bottom scoring range of the USMLE exams, although the strengths of the associations were weak to moderate. These results indicate that MCAT scores are predictive of student performance on the USMLE exams, but, given the small effect sizes, should be considered as part of the holistic view of the student.

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to determine the associations of the demographic variables of gender, state of legal residency, student age, and undergraduate major with scores on the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) and the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge.MethodsThe researchers collected and analyzed exam scores and demographic student data from participants of five graduating classes of students at the University of Minnesota Medical School (N = 1,067).ResultsSignificant differences (p < 0.05) were found for traditional-aged (defined as < 25 years old at matriculation) versus nontraditional-aged students on USMLE Step 1 scores (t[1065] = 2.91, p = 0.004) and USMLE Step 2 scores (t[1061] = 4.39, p < 0.001), both in favor of traditional-aged students. Significant differences were found for males versus females on MCAT Composite scores (t[1063] = 6.53, p < 0.001) and USMLE Step 1 scores (t[1065] = 5.14, p < 0.001), both in favor of males. There were no significant differences between science and nonscience majors or between Minnesota legal residents and nonresidents.ConclusionTraditional age and male gender were associated with higher exam scores, although patterns differed between tests, whereas undergraduate major and state of legal residency were not associated with higher exam scores.

The use of Gestalt principles of proximity, similarity, and closure to recognize objects by configural superiority was examined in college students, low- and high-functioning children with autism, toddlers, and adult cotton top tamarin monkeys. At issue was whether the monkeys showed differences from humans in perceptual processing and whether they showed any similarities with clinical or developmental groups. The method required a pointing response to discriminate an odd item in a 4-item visual display. All subjects were trained to a high accuracy to point to the odd item before being tested with graphic stimuli that differentiated feature changes based on configural superiority. The results were that college students and high-functioning children with autism responded faster and more accurately to trials in which the odd item was easily noticed by the use of Gestalt principles and configural superiority. Toddlers also responded more accurately to the Gestalt trials, but without being faster at making the response. Low-functioning children with autism and tamarins showed no advantage to Gestalt trials but exhibited different processing styles. The implications of these findings to track the evolution of human perception and to develop a primate model for the perceptual deficits of autism are discussed.

Purpose To conduct a study of the validity of the new Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Method Deidentified data for first- and second-year medical students (185 women, 54.3%; 156 men, 45.7%) who matriculated in 2016 and 2017 to the University of Minnesota Medical School–Twin Cities were included. Of those students, 220 (64.5%) had taken the new MCAT exam and 182 (53.4%) had taken the old MCAT exam (61 [17.9%] had taken both). The authors calculated descriptive statistics and Pearson product moment correlations (r) between new and old MCAT section scores. They conducteda regression analysis of MCAT section scores with Step 1 scores and with preclerkship course performance. They also conducted an exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis with varimax rotation) of MCAT scores, undergraduate grade point average, Step 1 scores, and course performance. Results The new MCAT exam section mean score percentiles ranged from 72 to 78 (mean composite score percentile of 80). The old MCAT exam section mean score percentiles ranged from 84 to 88 (mean composite score percentile of 83). The pattern of correlations among and between new and old MCAT exam section scores (range of r: 0.03–0.67; P < .01) provided evidence of both divergent and convergent validities. Backward multiple regression of new MCAT exam section scores and Step 1 scores resulted in a multiple R of .440; the same analysis with Human Behavior course performance as the dependent variable provided a similar solution with the expected sections of the new MCAT exam (multiple R = .502). The factor analysis resulted in 4 cohesive, theoretically meaningful factors: biomedical knowledge, basic science concepts, cognitive reasoning, and general achievement. Conclusions This study provided empirical evidence of multiple types of validity for the new MCAT exam.