So a univariate regression done in presumably a single year ( Not mentioned), of 155 people ( An entire class? So it's a paramater now?), from a single school, without any other variables measured ( Was asking how much time they spend studying for the particular exam too hard?), and without methods section, is somehow generalizable?
No offense man, but are all medical students such awful consumers of research? I mean I get it, you're trying to prove a point and you're going about doing it like you probably did in undergrad when you cited sources after having already written the paper only to go back and add them in. But that just doesn't cut it when you're trying to structure a succinct argument on the matter. I mean did you even bother to notice that this study was done before you even entered undergrad and when both the tests were significantly different?
Sorry, I personally don't care for either side of the matter. I just find misleading information under the guise of a 'citation' to be extra crude coming from a ms-4.
Also how the hell did JAOA actually publish this paper? I wouldn't wipe my ass with this stuff.
i'm going to preface this post by saying that it's hilarious that you are challenging me of all people regarding study design and interpretation. i'm far from your typical med student when it comes to knowledge/background regarding this topic and have the resume to prove it. also, unfortunately, 2006 was not before i entered undergrad but thanks for reminding me of my age
🙁
anyway....
1. in the real world you can't do the absolute perfect study to answer every question. this is actually a pretty simple yet decently designed study.
2. by perfectly matching everyone (to themselves) you are controlling for confounding therefore not doing so statistically (not measuring other variables) isn't as big a deal as you make it seem. also you don't study for each test exclusively so it doesn't matter how much each person studied because it will affect both level 1 and step 1 scores.
3. if there is any glaring bias in the study it is that the sample is self-selecting (these are people who were confident they'd do well on step 1 and therefore decided to take it ...or maybe had some other reason to decide to take step 1). that might limit generalizability if you are trying to use this formula to decide whether to take step 1 since the students in the sample used other unknown factors to decide whether or not to take the test.
4. sure they could've delved a bit more into HOW the students studied (not how long) because if you only used combank (or whatever it's called) that might be significant. but again one would assume that these people who specifically decided to take step 1 would have put in the necessary effort or used the appropriate resources. also, the data WAS NOT self-reported by the students but seems like it was obtained from the school therefore having to obtain data on these additional variables would have required a much more involved study with consent and IRB review (again, a real world problem that is overlooked in the utopia you deal with in text books).
5. no clue why you think it's important that the sample had to come from students in a single year....again, not important at all. it seems like the sample was not self report and therefore strengthens the study because it decreases selection bias (wherein certain students, presumably those who did poorly on one or the other test, would not consent to participate in the study).
finally i will admit that i should have looked more closely at the publish date because the avg level 1 score actually correlates to a barely passing step 1 score and not a failing score at the time this study was conducted. not sure how you think the tests have changed since then but that's really the only thing that's significantly different.
as someone else said this study is WAY better than the anecdotal stories posted on SDN and as i demonstrated above it is actually a very simple yet respectable way to answer the question the authors where trying to answer.
if you have any further questions or concerns or need more explanation study design concepts i'd be more than happy to explain them further because i absolutely love this subject (epidemiology not COMLEX vs USMLE). however if you're going to be belligerent and continue to baselessly attack me i'm going to ignore you.
