COMLEX Scores

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

oceanillusion42

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
171
Reaction score
1
OK very basic question here but I haven't been able to find a solid answer on my own.... maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

Basically, what is a "good" COMLEX score? I know everything there is to know about the USMLE as its readily available... but the COMLEX seems to be an enigma. I wish there was some breakdown somewhere like there is in the beginning of first aid that has the avg score for each specialty. Does such a thing exist for COMLEX?

I want to do EM, and I saw elsewhere that the avg for EM was around 500? I'm shooting for a 230 on the USMLE and a 550 on COMLEX (?)... does that COMLEX score seem reasonable compared to a 230 on the USMLE, like what is the COMLEX "equivalent" of a 230?

Thanks for your help!
 
I've heard COMLEX isn't a very accurate test so one should interpret scores with a grain of salt. That said, I think a 650-700 converts to a 240 on USMLE. 550 to 600 sounds about right for a 230
 
Last edited:
I've heard COMLEX isn't a very accurate test so one should interpret scores with a grain of salt. That said, I think a 650-700 converts to a 240 on USMLE. 550 to 600 sounds about right for a 230

600 is like 89th percentile, which would equate to 245+ if we're just going by mean and standard deviation as average comlex score is 500 with an standard deviation of 80 and an average USMLE is 222-225 with standard deviation of 18-22.
 
600 is like 89th percentile, which would equate to 245+ if we're just going by mean and standard deviation as average comlex score is 500 with an standard deviation of 80 and an average USMLE is 222-225 with standard deviation of 18-22.
Yeah but.. USMLE is a harder test.

So just cause you get a 600 (1+ standard deviation) on the COMLEX, doesn't mean you can score a 240 (also 1+ standard deviation).
 
Yeah but.. USMLE is a harder test.

So just cause you get a 600 (1+ standard deviation) on the COMLEX, doesn't mean you can score a 240 (also 1+ standard deviation).

He was talking percentile conversions, the 89th percentile of COMLEX and USMLE

You are talking about something else entirely, which is that someone who scores 89th percentile in the COMLEX does not necessarily score 89th percentile on the USMLE.Unnecessary extrapolation.
 
Or is it because they are content with AOA residencies?

For example, if someone wanted a surg or surg subspecialty residency, the AOA route is by far the most plausible. That obviously wouldn't add up to 30%, but there are a million other reasons to go AOA as well.
 
Yeah.. that's why like 70% of DO students opt not to take the Step 1 right?

They know it's a harder exam, we all do.

Not really. A lot of people don't take it because:

1.) They're going for a field that's not really competitive (primary care, etc.)
2.) They're a borderline student to begin with so the risk/benefit of taking another exam isn't advantageous
3.) They're feed misinformation and don't appropriately understand the implications of taking the test
4.) They're anxious about electing to take another high-stakes exam

There's a lot of self-screening that goes on with who takes the test. I know at my school our pass rates are usually higher for the USMLE than the COMLEX but that's usually because a lot of strong students take the exam.

Anecdotally, it always seems pretty random how people do on one exam versus another. I've definitely heard of some people doing vastly better on one and not the other but I think it's probably safe to say that if you do well on one you'll do well on another (and vice versa). Of course there's a gray zone in terms of percentiles. Maybe there's some data out there correlating scores.
 
Last edited:
it is rather random.
i found the usmle to be easier - and also more straightforward.
also, keep in mind some schools discourage students from taking the usmle.while some schools have a huge participation rate, e.g. schools with a big acgme match rate.
 
Yeah.. that's why like 70% of DO students opt not to take the Step 1 right?

They know it's a harder exam, we all do.

Is it really that low? I thought it was more like 90% of the DO students take it? I'd be interested to hear what the real number is.
 
i'd like to know also.
10 out of 29 schools declined to participate in the last student survey on usmle
http://www.jaoa.org/content/112/2/83.full.pdf+html
"even among leaders in osteopathic medical education, considerable uncertainty exists about whether usmle and comlex-usa are comparable ways to evaluate students"
 
Based on my experiences so far, the USMLE seems like an easier test to prep for. I'm reasonably confident I can do quite well on it.

The COMLEX on the other hand, I am much more hesitant about that one. Those questions are so vague...
 
Based on my experiences so far, the USMLE seems like an easier test to prep for. I'm reasonably confident I can do quite well on it.

The COMLEX on the other hand, I am much more hesitant about that one. Those questions are so vague...

For a while i thought that U-world was more straightforward and COMBANK was more abstract... more or less even the hard questions in U-world that I got wrong I was able to 1) rationalize and make sense of after seeing the answer or 2) was buried somewhere in first aid and I either forgot it or had overlooked it. Some COMBANK questions are just downright ridiculous and not in first aid, and still not rational to me after seeing the answer (and then they refer you to medscape or some abstract textbook for more info).

All that being said, I still have a 73% in COMBANK vs a 68% in U world.
 
For a while i thought that U-world was more straightforward and COMBANK was more abstract... more or less even the hard questions in U-world that I got wrong I was able to 1) rationalize and make sense of after seeing the answer or 2) was buried somewhere in first aid and I either forgot it or had overlooked it. Some COMBANK questions are just downright ridiculous and not in first aid, and still not rational to me after seeing the answer (and then they refer you to medscape or some abstract textbook for more info).

All that being said, I still have a 73% in COMBANK vs a 68% in U world.

I'm pretty much opposite
 
I agree. I didn't see as much of a correlation with the Comlex and USMLE. I did much better on the Step 1. It's a harder test. They can interpret my Comlex score as they want, but my USMLE score would have predicted a higher Comlex score (by 15 or so points). Oh well, there's a range. I get annoyed when people say that scored whatever on the Comlex and it automatically translates to a score on the Step 1. No. They are different tests. If you took both, there were more stresses and pulls on your time.
 
They are both hard tests in their own regards. Personally I found the USMLE easier to prep for as it was a bit more predictable. The COMLEX you have to do a bit more thinking outside the box. For EM you are going to want above 500 preferable 550. However, this is based on my own knowledge and absolutely no hard evidence. The only info I can give you is that everything is becoming more competitive. Even my gen surg program is strongly discouraging people from doing audition rotations with less than a 500 and most of our new interns have scores in the high 500's to mid 600's

Survivor DO
 
Thanks for the responses guys, much appreciated. Moral of the story is I guess I should put some more time into COMLEX prep lol.
 
For a while i thought that U-world was more straightforward and COMBANK was more abstract... more or less even the hard questions in U-world that I got wrong I was able to 1) rationalize and make sense of after seeing the answer or 2) was buried somewhere in first aid and I either forgot it or had overlooked it. Some COMBANK questions are just downright ridiculous and not in first aid, and still not rational to me after seeing the answer (and then they refer you to medscape or some abstract textbook for more info).

All that being said, I still have a 73% in COMBANK vs a 68% in U world.

I'm sporting similar percentages.

With Combank I find most of the OMM easy points...besides that it seems the questions are either extremely straightforward or convoluted as all hell. To be fair, that's kind of how I've heard COMLEX is as well
 
I'm sporting similar percentages.

With Combank I find most of the OMM easy points...besides that it seems the questions are either extremely straightforward or convoluted as all hell. To be fair, that's kind of how I've heard COMLEX is as well

But I mean how else can u really prepare for COMLEX then.... theoretically the info that your studying from FA and for the USMLE is the same, and you just need to make sure you're covering OMM... beyond that I guess its just gaining experience with COMLEX "style" questions thru COMBANK or a similar qbank. I feel like I have a good idea where I stand w the USMLE thru UWSA and NBME exams, but my COMLEX score will really be a surprise for me lol.

Assuming I bring my COMBANK average into the upper 70s or 80ish (I still have 4 weeks dedicated study time and have done half of COMBANK and sit at 73%, I'm confident I can come up to 80ish) what COMLEX score range would that put me at?
 
I agree. I didn't see as much of a correlation with the Comlex and USMLE. I did much better on the Step 1. It's a harder test. They can interpret my Comlex score as they want, but my USMLE score would have predicted a higher Comlex score (by 15 or so points). Oh well, there's a range. I get annoyed when people say that scored whatever on the Comlex and it automatically translates to a score on the Step 1. No. They are different tests. If you took both, there were more stresses and pulls on your time.

👍

Yeah.. if you only took the COMLEX, don't make up a Step 1 score by converting it.

They're not equal.
 
👍

Yeah.. if you only took the COMLEX, don't make up a Step 1 score by converting it.

They're not equal.

the "conversion" suggested above using percentiles is absurd. the populations taking step 1 and level 1 are wildly different therefore achieving 90th percentile on step 1 (whatever that corresponds to, noone actually knows) is WAY harder than doing so on level 1.

the following study in JAOA tried to come up with a linear regression formula for comparing the two tests using 155 students at one school who took both tests: http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/9/568.full

as you can see from the COMLEX level 1 to USMLE step 1 conversion formula in this study, an average COMLEX score of 500 correlates to a FAILING score on step 1! A borderline passing score on COMLEX correlates to a comically low 164 on step 1.
 
the "conversion" suggested above using percentiles is absurd. the populations taking step 1 and level 1 are wildly different therefore achieving 90th percentile on step 1 (whatever that corresponds to, noone actually knows) is WAY harder than doing so on level 1.

the following study in JAOA tried to come up with a linear regression formula for comparing the two tests using 155 students at one school who took both tests: http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/9/568.full

as you can see from the COMLEX level 1 to USMLE step 1 conversion formula in this study, an average COMLEX score of 500 correlates to a FAILING score on step 1! A borderline passing score on COMLEX correlates to a comically low 164 on step 1.

Thank you.

Step I's a harder test. Case closed.
 
the "conversion" suggested above using percentiles is absurd. the populations taking step 1 and level 1 are wildly different therefore achieving 90th percentile on step 1 (whatever that corresponds to, noone actually knows) is WAY harder than doing so on level 1.

the following study in JAOA tried to come up with a linear regression formula for comparing the two tests using 155 students at one school who took both tests: http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/9/568.full

as you can see from the COMLEX level 1 to USMLE step 1 conversion formula in this study, an average COMLEX score of 500 correlates to a FAILING score on step 1! A borderline passing score on COMLEX correlates to a comically low 164 on step 1.

Good find, thanks!
 
the "conversion" suggested above using percentiles is absurd. the populations taking step 1 and level 1 are wildly different therefore achieving 90th percentile on step 1 (whatever that corresponds to, noone actually knows) is WAY harder than doing so on level 1.

the following study in JAOA tried to come up with a linear regression formula for comparing the two tests using 155 students at one school who took both tests: http://www.jaoa.org/content/106/9/568.full

as you can see from the COMLEX level 1 to USMLE step 1 conversion formula in this study, an average COMLEX score of 500 correlates to a FAILING score on step 1! A borderline passing score on COMLEX correlates to a comically low 164 on step 1.

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.
 
skinMD cited a JAOA article.

tumblr_lxrrquzjck1r0men0.jpg
 
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.

The only thing I know is that is at least published somewhere and isn't anecdotal evidence as everything else seems to be regarding this topic. Obviously its to be taken with a grain of salt as an n=155 cant be representative of every DO student in the country, but its something.
 
The only thing I know is that is at least published somewhere and isn't anecdotal evidence as everything else seems to be regarding this topic. Obviously its to be taken with a grain of salt as an n=155 cant be representative of every DO student in the country, but its something.

No, it's actually nothing. It's completely meaningless starting from the fact that it doesn't mention how it sampled, when the sampling process occurred, issues with the report, and was done univariately. This not to mention that this was published in 2005, meaning it was done before then. I.e when the COMLEX & USMLE were likely paper based and very much different. Likewise this was done without considering the fact that every year the average DO student changed and the average mcat went up. I mean lets try to apply the findings of a sample that had an average mcat of 23-24 to now when the average is a 27 and take a test that arguable barely resembles what it looked like back then?

Sorry, but this was a meaningless and worthless article. To derive any meaningful application is ludicrous. It's akin to saying that women experience heart attacks similar to men.
 
No, it's actually nothing. It's completely meaningless starting from the fact that it doesn't mention how it sampled, when the sampling process occurred, issues with the report, and was done univariately. This not to mention that this was published in 2005, meaning it was done before then. I.e when the COMLEX & USMLE were likely paper based and very much different. Likewise this was done without considering the fact that every year the average DO student changed and the average mcat went up. I mean lets try to apply the findings of a sample that had an average mcat of 23-24 to now when the average is a 27 and take a test that arguable barely resembles what it looked like back then?

Sorry, but this was a meaningless and worthless article. To derive any meaningful application is ludicrous. It's akin to saying that women experience heart attacks similar to men.

lol okay take a deep breath
 
The only thing I know is that is at least published somewhere and isn't anecdotal evidence as everything else seems to be regarding this topic. Obviously its to be taken with a grain of salt as an n=155 cant be representative of every DO student in the country, but its something.

A search on SDN will show you that there are tons and tons of DOs that have taken both and say that conversion grossly under estimates.
 
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.
 
This not to mention that this was published in 2005, meaning it was done before then. I.e when the COMLEX & USMLE were likely paper based and very much different. Likewise this was done without considering the fact that every year the average DO student changed and the average mcat went up. I mean lets try to apply the findings of a sample that had an average mcat of 23-24 to now when the average is a 27 and take a test that arguable barely resembles what it looked like back then?

1. "In 1999, the United States Medical Licensing Examination was converted from paper and pencil format to computer-based format." ....again, not that it matters at all (you can't just say that something would drastically change the study without saying how or why, you have to have a reason and a hypothesis on how it would affect the results)

2. on that same note...how would MCAT score matter since presumably both comlex and step 1 scores would increase but the relationship between them wouldn't change. i feel like you think that i (or the authors) are making conclusions from this data that noone is suggesting.
 
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.

What does it answer exactly?

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.

Lol, two tests with different format and different focus ( one tests one subject more + OMM + asks differently) and one person studies entirely for the COMLEX as opposed to studying USMLE. No confounds? Try again.

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.

We are not told how this study is conducted... nor the sampling

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).

Your first bit contradicts your point I think... also how did this potentially put students into deres or danger for IRB review to reject?

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).

I'm saying that having it be one from year would be a problem as it weakens Person's moment and generalizability, likewise no post-hoc analysis = bad.

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.

I think things have changed a lot. This analysis doesn't seem to account for the changes i.e the rapid raise in quality of students, etc.

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.

Choose the lesser evil, really?

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.

I'll apologize, as I said again. I get testy when people present to me bad research. Sorry, but it's the truth. You don't need to have gone through grad school in quant methodology to see it, in my lab kids through different generations constantly violate things we've found in previous years. Why do you think the populations of interest are so stagnant and similar to what they were 10 years ago?
 
1. "In 1999, the United States Medical Licensing Examination was converted from paper and pencil format to computer-based format." ....again, not that it matters at all (you can't just say that something would drastically change the study without saying how or why, you have to have a reason and a hypothesis on how it would affect the results)

2. on that same note...how would MCAT score matter since presumably both comlex and step 1 scores would increase but the relationship between them wouldn't change. i feel like you think that i (or the authors) are making conclusions from this data that noone is suggesting.

Ok, I was wrong on that. I assumed it switched at a similar data to the mcat. And yah, I'd imagine it switching being huge, I mean look at the spike in scores since then ( At least for the mcat).

And I'm saying that the relationship has changed due to increased mcat scores. For example JAMA pointed out that after a certain point via quadratic analysis that the scores stop mattering in terms of outcomes/ pass rate and tapper off i.e at about 26-27. So having the average DO student being at that point likely has modified the relationship between the three. I.e the average DO student is now different than 10 years ago in terms of scores. Which is why this equation needed a lot more data, I'm talking meta-analysis amount to actually be anywhere near valid or reliable.
 
I'll apologize, as I said again. I get testy when people present to me bad research. Sorry, but it's the truth. You don't need to have gone through grad school in quant methodology to see it, in my lab kids through different generations constantly violate things we've found in previous years. Why do you think the populations of interest are so stagnant and similar to what they were 10 years ago?

many studies have shown that the correlation between MCAT score and step 1 score is very weak. also it doesn't matter what the average MCAT score is because we're not comparing average scores...we're comparing a set of matched scores. what you're arguing is that scores might be higher nowadays but there's no reason why that should change the relationship.

one person studies entirely for the COMLEX as opposed to studying USMLE. No confounds? Try again.

i talked about this exact thing in #4 of the post you quoted and explained why it's probably not that big of a deal

also how did this potentially put students into deres or danger for IRB review to reject?

didn't say the IRB would reject it...just that they would've had to get IRB approval and consent which would be a much more involved study than the one conducted and also potentially introduce selection bias because it gives students the option to refuse to participate



I think things have changed a lot.

unless the tests themselves have changed then i'm not really following your argument. as i said above it doesn't matter that the MCAT average increased because we are comparing scores obtained by an individual not group averages.

Choose the lesser evil, really?

yes.... i agree that the study is flawed (definitely not to the extent you're suggesting) but it's still decent if you realize its limitations

anyway, we've made our points...guess we'll agree to disagree here. i would strongly suggest though that you work hard on not taking the approach you took in your initial post (rude, belittling, making assumptions about people) when entering a discussion because you will inevitably horribly embarrass yourself or piss off someone important. fortunately for you this was only a minor ensnarement and we are on an anonymous internet forum but just be careful in real life.
 
I'll keep that in mind, lets both play more nicely in the future 🙂
 
Please do, and please ignore me and everyone else on the forum as well. That would be awesome, thanks!

Seconded. Please add me to your "Do not care" list

MedPR, we never knew ya!
00449dd12c998a921881c6d0fb9d9dea.gif
 
Last edited:
A search on SDN will show you that there are tons and tons of DOs that have taken both and say that conversion grossly under estimates.

Gonna run mine real quick and see what the formula predicts.

For step 1: Formula predicts a 243 usmle step 1 with a 732 comlex (I got a 250, so ehhhh semi close)

Step 2: Predicts a 226!! for a 688 comlex step 2 (I got a 258, way way off on that one)

Would be interesting for more people to test this and see if we can debunk it and/or come up with a better formula. I would not be surprised if we could come up with a larger sample size on SDN than the AOA came up with.
 
Gonna run mine real quick and see what the formula predicts.

For step 1: Formula predicts a 243 usmle step 1 with a 732 comlex (I got a 250, so ehhhh semi close)

Step 2: Predicts a 226!! for a 688 comlex step 2 (I got a 258, way way off on that one)

Would be interesting for more people to test this and see if we can debunk it and/or come up with a better formula. I would not be surprised if we could come up with a larger sample size on SDN than the AOA came up with.

Not to mention that this "experiment" was conducted at one school, it couldn't be that there are any similarities in the "type" of student used, nor in the pre-clinical education.
 
Would be interesting for more people to test this and see if we can debunk it and/or come up with a better formula. I would not be surprised if we could come up with a larger sample size on SDN than the AOA came up with.

now THAT would be a terrible sample! not only is it a "convenience" sample but there would be insane selection bias. it's not just about sample size.

looks like the step 1 formula is fairly accurate in your case. i'm skeptical about the step 2 formula (and therefore haven't mentioned it at all) because the sample size is so tiny and from what i understand it's fairly uncommon for DOs to take step 2 so i don't know what the motivation would be for doing so.

Not to mention that this "experiment" was conducted at one school

this is not an "experiment" ...it is an observational study
 
now THAT would be a terrible sample! not only is it a "convenience" sample but there would be insane selection bias. it's not just about sample size.

looks like the step 1 formula is fairly accurate in your case. i'm skeptical about the step 2 formula (and therefore haven't mentioned it at all) because the sample size is so tiny and from what i understand it's fairly uncommon for DOs to take step 2 so i don't know what the motivation would be for doing so.



this is not an "experiment" ...it is an observational study

Ehh itd prob still be better than the AOA. Its the bloody AOA afterall.
 
Is it really that low? I thought it was more like 90% of the DO students take it? I'd be interested to hear what the real number is.

http://www.usmle.org/performance-data/default.aspx#2011_step-1

2211 DOs took step 1 in 2011. There were 4913 DO graduates in 2013, so about 45% of the class of 2013 took the test.

When considering that information, I don't think DO schools' match lists look that bad when only about 35-40% of DOs have a passing usmle step 1 score on their applications.

I thought Usmle step 1 was easier than comlex level 1.
 
Last edited:
Skin, a snowball would probably be better if it had a more representative population. Law of big, numbers man..
 
I thought Usmle step 1 was easier than comlex level 1.

While I haven't taken either, my experience with QBanks mirrors this.

I'm sitting comfortably in the 90th percentile on UWorld, but my average on COMBANK is just under 70%.

Sure, I think Uworld (and therefore I assume the USMLE) tests to a deeper level on the sciences, but anyone who is in medical school should have the ability to master the sciences well enough to do well there.

COMLEX on the other hand...my COMBANK questions are much more clinically oriented, and the writing is very vague. You don't know how many times I've read the explanation to a question and realized that I was dealing with a tri-morbid patient or something.

"Homeless man with dyspnea, pulmonary opacity on CXR, and rose colored spots on abdomen?" That's all they give and I'm supposed to "just know" that he must be an AIDS patient and has Pneumocystis pneumonia and Kaposi's and answer microbiology and pharm questions accordingly?

If that's representative of how the tests compare then I completely expect to do much better on USMLE than COMLEX.
 
Top