Davis Glenn E, Gayer Gregory G
J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2017 Feb 1;117(2):114-123. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2017.022.
With the coming single accreditation system for graduate medical education, medical educators may wonder whether knowledge in basic sciences is equivalent for osteopathic and allopathic medical students.
To examine whether medical students' basic science knowledge is the same among osteopathic and allopathic medical students.
A dataset of the Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine-CA student records from the classes of 2013, 2014, and 2015 and the national cohort of National Board of Medical Examiners Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (NBME-CBSE) parameters for MD students were used. Models of the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination-USA (COMLEX-USA) Level 1 scores were fit using linear and logistic regression. The models included variables used in both osteopathic and allopathic medical professions to predict COMLEX-USA outcomes, such as Medical College Admission Test biology scores, preclinical grade point average, number of undergraduate science units, and scores on the NBME-CBSE. Regression statistics were studied to compare the effectiveness of models that included or excluded NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores. Variance inflation factor was used to investigate multicollinearity. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to show the effectiveness of NBME-CBSE scores at predicting COMLEX-USA Level 1 pass/fail outcomes. A t test at 99% level was used to compare mean NBME-CBSE scores with the national cohort.
A total of 390 student records were analyzed. Scores on the NBME-CBSE were found to be an effective predictor of COMLEX-USA Level 1 scores (P<.001). The pass/fail outcome on COMLEX-USA Level 1 was also well predicted by NBME-CBSE scores (P<.001). No significant difference was found in performance on the NBME-CBSE between osteopathic and allopathic medical students (P=.322).
As an examination constructed to assess the basic science knowledge of allopathic medical students, the NBME-CBSE is effective at predicting performance on COMLEX-USA Level 1. In addition, osteopathic medical students performed the same as allopathic medical students on the NBME-CBSE. The results imply that the same basic science knowledge is expected for DO and MD students.
随着研究生医学教育单一认证系统的到来，医学教育工作者可能会想，整骨疗法医学生和对抗疗法医学生在基础科学方面的知识是否相当。
研究整骨疗法医学生和对抗疗法医学生在基础科学知识方面是否相同。
使用了托罗大学整骨医学院加利福尼亚分校2013级、2014级和2015级学生记录的数据集，以及美国国家医学考试委员会综合基础科学考试（NBME-CBSE）针对医学博士（MD）学生的全国队列参数。使用线性回归和逻辑回归建立了美国整骨医学执照考试（COMLEX-USA）一级分数的模型。这些模型包括整骨疗法和对抗疗法医学专业中用于预测COMLEX-USA结果的变量，如医学院入学考试生物学分数、临床前平均绩点、本科科学课程单元数量以及NBME-CBSE分数。研究回归统计数据以比较包含或排除NBME-CBSE分数的模型在预测COMLEX-USA一级分数方面的有效性。使用方差膨胀因子来研究多重共线性。使用受试者工作特征曲线来展示NBME-CBSE分数在预测COMLEX-USA一级通过/未通过结果方面的有效性。使用99%水平的t检验来比较NBME-CBSE平均分数与全国队列。
共分析了390份学生记录。发现NBME-CBSE分数是COMLEX-USA一级分数的有效预测指标（P<.001）。NBME-CBSE分数对COMLEX-USA一级的通过/未通过结果也有很好的预测作用（P<.001）。整骨疗法医学生和对抗疗法医学生在NBME-CBSE上的表现没有显著差异（P=.322）。
作为一项旨在评估对抗疗法医学生基础科学知识的考试，NBME-CBSE在预测COMLEX-USA一级表现方面是有效的。此外，整骨疗法医学生在NBME-CBSE上的表现与对抗疗法医学生相同。结果表明，对于整骨疗法博士（DO）学生和医学博士（MD）学生，期望他们具备相同的基础科学知识。
