Skip to main content
Log in

Curricular Reform in Two Medical School Tracks and the Impact on USMLE Scores

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The University of Arizona College of Medicine underwent several curricular revisions that began in 2006. These changes included (1) moving from a traditional to a systems-based curriculum, (2) adding a second campus location, and (3) altering the duration of clinical clerkships. We examined whether these curricular revisions impacted student performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) step 1 and step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) examinations.

Method

We examined curricular changes that took place from academic years 2006–2010 (classes of 2010–2014) compared to the previous traditional-based curriculum in two different medical school tracks under one university system. Academic years 2002–2005 served as control, and ten different curricular groups were examined. An ANOVA was conducted for each step exam, and all pairwise differences were examined using Tukey’s honest significant differences. Statistical significance was established at p < 0.05.

Results

The first year of the revised preclerkship curriculum resulted in lower step 1 scores compared to the previously traditional curriculum. However, statistically significant mean increases in step 1 and 2 scores were found for curricular groups that experienced the revised preclerkship curriculum, a return to six-week clerkship rotations, and had completed all 4 years at one specific campus on one specific medical track.

Conclusion

With the integration of basic and clinical sciences in the first 2 years and modifications to the clerkship rotations, the content of the curriculum was taught with more regard to what will ultimately benefit the practicing physician. This curricular reform led to higher scores particularly on the step 2 USMLE exam.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Medical Association, Accelerating change in medical education. Available at: (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/strategic-focus/accelerating-change-in-medical-education.page?). Accessed December 15th, 2014.

  2. Innovation is sweeping through U.S. Medical Schools. The wall street journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/innovation-is-sweeping-through-u-s-medical-schools-1424145650. Accessed 20 May 2015.

  3. Joiner KA, Schloss EP, Malan P, Flynn SD, Chadwick JA. Phoenix rises, with Tucson’s help: establishing the first four-year allopathic program in the nation’s fifth largest city. Acad Med. 2007;82(12):1126–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chadwick JA, Moynahan KF, Koff NA. University of Arizona College of Medicine: Tucson and Phoenix. Acad Med. 2010;85(9):S78–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Williams PC, Epps AC, McCammon S. The strategic impact of a changing curriculum and learning environment on medical students’ academic performance. J Natl Med Assoc. 2011;103:802–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenthal RH, Levine RE, Carlson DL, Clegg KA, Crosby RD. The “shrinking” clerkship: characteristics and length of clerkships in psychiatry undergraduate education. Acad Psychiatry. 2005;29910:47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ling Y, Swanson DB, Hotzman K, Bucak SD. Retention of basic science information by senior medical students. Acad Med. 2008;83(10):582–5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hecker K, Violato C. How much do differences in medical schools influence student performance? A longitudinal study employing hierarchical linear modeling. Teaching and Learning in Medicine: An International Journal. 2008;20(2):04–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Montgomery DC. Design and analysis of experiments. Sixth ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded in part with a grant from the Department of Academic Affairs, University of Arizona College of Medicine – Phoenix. The authors wish to thank Dr. Jacquelyn Chadwick and Dr. Christine Savi for their help and support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cynthia A. Standley.

Ethics declarations

The University of Arizona (UA) College of Medicine (COM) Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lundy, M.B., Standley, C.A. & Westveld, A.H. Curricular Reform in Two Medical School Tracks and the Impact on USMLE Scores. Med.Sci.Educ. 27, 201–207 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0368-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-016-0368-y

Keywords

Navigation