Abstract
Multiple studies examining the relationship between physician gender and performance on examinations have found consistent significant gender differences, but relatively little information is available related to any gender effect on interviewing and written communication skills. The United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE®) Step 2 Clinical Skills® (CS®) examination is a multi-station examination where examinees (physicians in training) interact with, and are rated by, standardized patients (SPs) portraying cases in an ambulatory setting. Data from a recent complete year (2009) were analyzed via a series of hierarchical linear models to examine the impact of examinee gender on performance on the data gathering (DG) and patient note (PN) components of this examination. Results from both components show that not only do women have higher scores on average, but women continue to perform significantly better than men when other examinee and case variables are taken into account. Generally, the effect sizes are moderate, reflecting an approximately 2% score advantage by encounter. The advantage for female examinees increased for encounters that did not require a physical examination (for the DG component only) and for encounters that involved a Women’s Health issue (for both components). The gender of the SP did not have an impact on the examinee gender effect for DG, indicating a desirable lack of interaction between examinee and SP gender. The implications of the findings, especially with respect to the validity of the use of the examination outcomes, are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Batenburg, V., Smal, J. A., Lodder, A., & de Melker, R. A. (1999). Are professional attitudes related to gender and medical specialty? Medical Education, 33(7), 489–492.
Bickel, R. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It’s just regression! New York: The Guilford Press.
Boulet, J. R., & McKinley, D. W. (2005). Investigating gender-related construct-irrelevant components of scores on the written assessment exercise of a high-stakes certification assessment. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 10(1), 53–63.
Boulet, J. R., McKinley, D. W., Rebbecchi, T., & Whelan, G. P. (2007). Does composition medium affect the psychometric properties of scores on an exercise designed to assess written medical communication skills? Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 157–167.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park: Sage.
Chambers, K. A., Boulet, J. R., & Furman, G. E. (2001). Are interpersonal skills ratings influenced by gender in a clinical skills assessment using standardized patients? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 6(3), 231–241.
Clauser, B. E., Ross, L. P., Fletcher, E. A., Klass, D. J., Finkbiner, R. G., & King, A. M. (1994). Differential item functioning in checklist items from a standardized-patient-based examination. Academic Medicine, 69(10), S72–S74.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Colliver, J. A., Marcy, M. L., Travis, T. A., & Robbs, R. S. (1991). The interaction of student gender and standardized-patient gender on a performance-based examination of clinical competence. Academic Medicine, 66(9), S31–S33.
Colliver, J. A., Vu, N. V., Marcy, M. L., Travis, T., & Robbs, R. S. (1993). Effects of examinee gender, standardized-patient gender, and their interaction on standardized patient ratings of examinees’ interpersonal and communication skills. Academic Medicine, 68(2), 153–157.
Cuddy, M. M., Swygert, K. A., Swanson, D. B., & Jobe, A. C. (2011). A multi-level analysis of examinee gender, standardized patient gender and USMLE Step 2 clinical skills communication and interpersonal skills scores. Academic Medicine, 86(10 Suppl), S17–S20.
Furman, G. E., Colliver, J. A., & Galofre, A. (1993). Effects of student gender and standardized-patient gender in a single case using a male and a female standardized patient. Academic Medicine, 68(4), 301–303.
Gomez, J. M., Prieto, L., Pujol, R., Arbizu, T., Vilar, L., Pi, F., et al. (1997). Clinical skills assessments with standardized patients. Medical Education, 31(2), 94–98.
Haist, S. A., Wilson, J. F., Elam, C. L., Blue, A. V., & Fosson, S. E. (2000). The effect of gender and age on medical school performance: An important interaction. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 5(3), 197–205.
Haist, S. A., Witzke, D. B., Quinlivan, S., Murphy-Spencer, A., & Wilson, J. F. (2003). Clinical skills as demonstrated by a comprehensive clinical performance examination: Who performs better—men or women? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8(3), 189–199.
Harik, P., Clauser, B. E., Grabovsky, I., Margolis, M. J., Dillon, G. F., & Boulet, J. R. (2006). Relationships among subcomponents of the USMLE Step 2 clinical skills examination, the Step 1, and the Step 2 clinical knowledge examinations. Academic Medicine, 81(10 Suppl), S21–S24.
Harik, P., Clauser, B. E., Grabovsky, I., Nungester, R. J., Swanson, D., & Nandakumar, R. (2009). An examination of rater drift within a generalizability framework. Journal of Educational Measurement, 46(1), 43–58.
Matthew, D., & Garrison, G. (2003). Future medical school applicants. Part II. Gender diversity. AAMC Analytical Brief, 7, 1–2.
Norman, G., Young, M., & Brooks, L. (2007). Non-analytical models of clinical reasoning: The role of experience. Medical Education, 41, 1140–1145.
Roter, D. L., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Physician gender and patient-centered communication: A critical review of empirical research. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 497–519.
Rothman, A. I., Cohen, R., Ross, J., Poldre, P., & Dawson, B. (1995). Station gender bias in a multiple-station test of clinical skills. Academic Medicine, 70(1), 42–46.
Rutala, P. J., Witzke, D. B., Leko, E. O., & Fulginiti, J. V. (1991). The influences of student and standardized patient genders on scoring in an objective structured clinical examination. Academic Medicine, 66(9), S28–S30.
Stevens, J. P. (Ed.). (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stillman, P. L., Regan, M. B., Swanson, D. B., & Haley, H. A. (1992). Gender differences in clinical skills as measured by an examination using standardized patients. In I. R. Hart, R. M. Harden, & J. DesMarchais (Eds.), Current developments in assessing clinical competence. Montreal, QC, Canada: Can-Heal Publications.
Swygert, K. A., Muller, E. S., Scott, C. L., & Swanson, D. B. (2010). The relationship between USMLE® Step 2 CS patient note ratings and time spent on the note—do examinees who spend more time write better notes? Academic Medicine, 85(10 Suppl), S89–S92.
USMLE. (2011). USMLE Step 2 Clinical Skills: Content description and general information. Philadelphia: National Board of Medical Examiners.
van Zanten, M., Boulet, J. R., & McKinley, D. W. (2003). Correlates of performance on the ECFMG CSA: Influences of candidate characteristics on clinical skills performance. Academic Medicine, 78(10 Suppl), S72–S75.
van Zanten, M., Boulet, J., & Mckinley, D. (2007). Using standardized patients to assess the interpersonal skills of physicians: Six years experience with a high stakes certification examination. Health Communication, 22(3), 195–205.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the staff of the Clinical Skills Evaluation Collaboration (CSEC) and the staff and standardized patients of the Step 2 CS testing centers for their hard work and continuing dedication to the USMLE program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Swygert, K.A., Cuddy, M.M., van Zanten, M. et al. Gender differences in examinee performance on the Step 2 Clinical Skills® data gathering (DG) and patient note (PN) components. Adv in Health Sci Educ 17, 557–571 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9333-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9333-0