Objective : We report the differences in final examination scores achieved by students at the culmination of two different teaching strategies in an introductory skills course. Methods : Multiple choice examination scores from six consecutive academic calendar sessions over 18 months (n = 503) were compared. Two groups were used: Cohort A (n = 290) represented students who were enrolled in the course 3 consecutive academic sessions before an instructional change and Cohort B (n = 213) included students who were enrolled in 3 consecutive academic sessions following the instructional change, which included a more active learning format. Statistical analyses used were 2-tailed independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD), and effect size. Results : The 2-tailed independent t-test revealed a significant difference between the two groups (t = -3.71, p < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-4.20). Significant difference was found in the highest performing subgroup compared to the lowest performing subgroup in Cohort A (F = 3.343, p = .037). For Cohort A subgroups 1 and 2, Tukey's HSD was p < .028. In Cohort B, no difference was found among subgroups (F = 1.912, p = .150, HSD p > .105). Conclusion : Compared to previous versions of the same course taught by the same instructor, the students in the new course design performed better, suggesting that using active learning techniques helps improve student achievement.

Purpose: This retrospective study measured correlation of student performance between 2 objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) and an introductory integrated clinical skills course that preceded the OSCEs. The hypothesis was that there would be a strong, positive correlation between the earlier level examinations and the upper level OSCE, high enough that earlier examinations could be viewed as predictors of upper level OSCE performance. Methods: Using student scores for 5 academic terms of upper level OSCEs for 2008-2009 (n = 208) and respective earlier scores, correlation coefficients were calculated for the upper level OSCE and Clinical Skills course, and upper and lower level OSCEs. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to evaluate how well the lower level OSCE and clinical skills scores, both as lone and combined independent variables, predicted the upper level OSCE scores. Results: There was at least a moderate correlation between both sets of scores: r = .51 (p < .001) between upper level OSCE and clinical skills course, r = .54 (p < .001) between the upper and lower level OSCEs. A combination of clinical skills and lower level OSCE scores suggested a moderate prediction of upper level OSCE scores (R 2 = .38.) Conclusions: Correlations were found to be of at least a moderate level. According to linear regression analysis, a combination of the earlier scores was moderately predictive for the upper level OSCE. More research could be done to determine additional components of student performance.