Is there a strong correlation between your step 1 score and the following?

[iState]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I was wondering how predictive the following things are of your score on Step 1:

1. Your grades during the first and second years (my school uses Fail/Pass/Honors)
Do people that honor every class do better than those who don't? I personally felt that my first year exams assessed how well we could memorize material more than they assessed how well we understood it, so I would think not, but I would like to know others' opinions.

2. The amount of time that you study
This seems like a stupid question, but what I'm really asking is if studying a certain amount of time (say, 10 hours a day for 2 months) is going to guarantee a certain score (I found this to be generally true of my first year of med school, where if I spent enough time just going over material repeatedly, I would do well on the test).

3. Your "intelligence" (arguably measured by things like an IQ test, SAT score, MCAT score)
My scores on other standardized tests were above average but not stellar. Does this make it unlikely that I'll get a top-notch Step 1 score?


I apologize if these questions sound dumb. I'm really trying to assess how much one's performance on the Step 1 is really under one's own control.
Thanks in advance

 

[britishmafia]

Personally, I think it only really comes down to how much you put into it. Some will need longer hours than others. In the end, it comes down to who can memorize the rarest of the most common and the most common of the rarest.

I've met many people I would consider to be of superior intelligence who didn't put in enough time on this test to memorize those facts. They could synthesize well and really understand the material. However, they didn't get many of those obscure questions correct, which is what separates you from the herd.

Here's my take...
- an ability to synthesize material and pull together the basics of medicine will at least guarantee a pass if not an average score (within SD)
- the obscure facts, which come down to time input during studying/cramming, are what can set you apart

In other words, this test is more a test of endurance and capacity for knowledge at the highest levels than it is a real understanding and application of basic science.

So your performance in med school might correlate, and the mcat may also correlate, but it all comes downtown your approach now... Not 1-3 years ago.

 

[iState]

Thanks for your reply.

Out of curiosity, where one would go to find this "rarest of the most common and the most common of the rarest" information. I would think that review books would contain only the higher yield info.

Is this stuff talked about in class (if that's the case, the student that can most effectively master all material presented in class would do well, right?)

 

[britishmafia]

Your review books and FA will have a lot of it.
They just don't tell you, for example, just how rare maple syrup urine disease is.

 

[okdocrx]

I have a question about step 1,

if you use the review books to study will that be enough to get a decent competitive score or do you need to draw on some of the required knowledge from the lectures and class notes and textbooks during year 1 and 2?

 

[MrAgreeable]

I have a question about step 1,

if you use the review books to study will that be enough to get a decent competitive score or do you need to draw on some of the required knowledge from the lectures and class notes and textbooks during year 1 and 2?

Study your tail off first two years then put those notes on the shelf and let them gather dust.

FA and UWorld/Kaplan are the way to go during your Step I study weeks, I prefer UWorld.

 

[M Tobaggen MD]

I have a question about step 1,

if you use the review books to study will that be enough to get a decent competitive score or do you need to draw on some of the required knowledge from the lectures and class notes and textbooks during year 1 and 2?

There'll be some questions on the test that arent in FA/UW that you'll answer from being diligent during the first few years but these questions are few and completely unpredictable.

I agree with the above post. Retire your class notes and use FA and UW.

 

[ArcGurren]

I think people should stop trying to fish for validation as to how they're doing will translate to their Step 1 scores. There's like 15 threads on this and they all ultimately come to the same thing... NOTHING properly correlates to Step 1 scores aside from how hard you work at it.

 

[britishmafia]

I think people should stop trying to fish for validation as to how they're doing will translate to their Step 1 scores. There's like 15 threads on this and they all ultimately come to the same thing... NOTHING properly correlates to Step 1 scores aside from how hard you work at it.

Exactly.


Can we have a mod close threads like this in the future, unless it's an announcement of something that was just published and .... Useful?

 

[UAAWolf]

Hey OP
"The will to win means nothing without the will to prepare"

 

[iState]

Exactly.


Can we have a mod close threads like this in the future, unless it's an announcement of something that was just published and .... Useful?

I don't see what's wrong in trying to figure out what to expect when you take an exam. Many of the people on this forum would like to know how to get the best score possible, whether that is by thoroughly learning your lecture notes or by focusing on high yield material in review books, or whatever.

If you don't find the thread useful, by all means stop reading it. Nobody is asking you to contribute.

 

[Tig2575]

1. Highly correlated
2. Highly correlated up until about 8 weeks of studying, after which there is no significant gain in score. The rate plateaus out between 4 and 6 weeks
3. MCAT and SAT scores are not highly correlated

 

[poorracerkid]

1. No
2. No
3. Yes but standardized tests aren't a good measure of your common sense!!!!!!!!!!

I studied hardcore (8-10 hours a day) for only 5-6 weeks, have almost all passes first and second year, and did >1 s.d above the mean.

 

[Tig2575]

1. No
2. No
3. Yes but standardized tests aren't a good measure of your common sense!!!!!!!!!!

I studied hardcore (8-10 hours a day) for only 5-6 weeks, have almost all passes first and second year, and did >1 s.d above the mean.

You must not have done very well in biostats, considering that you seem to think anecdotal evidence is scientifically reliable. Long term evidence based studies at various medical schools around the country have shown a strong correlation between the amount of time studied and the student's first two years performance, and a very weak correlation between prior levels of standardized test performance.

 

[deleted245139]

interesting study done by a LECOM professor following the 2007-2009 classes measuring step I score relative to 1- gpa, and 2- kaplan diagnostic (taken just after thanksgiving of yr 2). Take with a grain of salt, but the correlation is pretty impressive.

not sure if this includes bradenton, but at worst the sample size is ~250/class, at best, ~400/class

http://www.aacom.org/events/annualmtg/past/2008/Documents/2008 Posters/Michael_Bradbury.pdf

Edit: I neglected to see if the OP meant USMLE or COMLEX... the above study was for the COMLEX step 1

 

[hyrule]

MCAT correlates least I'd say. Step 1 is purely what you know. MCAT you can get by with being a good test taker/strategy.

 

[235009]

i'll bite....

1. Your grades during the first and second years (my school uses Fail/Pass/Honors)
Do people that honor every class do better than those who don't? I personally felt that my first year exams assessed how well we could memorize material more than they assessed how well we understood it, so I would think not, but I would like to know others' opinions.

i think those who honor many classes first ad second year will most likely do very well on step 1 however if your grades weren't anything to write home about during the preclinical years you can absolutely pull off a great step 1 score if you put in the effort. I think learning the material is the most important thing during the first two years ...that might not always translate into good grades or honors and that's perfectly fine since it pays off in the long run.

2. The amount of time that you study
This seems like a stupid question, but what I'm really asking is if studying a certain amount of time (say, 10 hours a day for 2 months) is going to guarantee a certain score (I found this to be generally true of my first year of med school, where if I spent enough time just going over material repeatedly, I would do well on the test).

u can't just go through the motions of studying for 600 hours and then be "guaranteed" a certain score. HOW you study is as important as how much you study. You can spend 600 hours concentrating on low yield stuff in RR or you can spend 600 hours doing UWorld questions, reading FA, listening to goljan, watching kaplan videos and really working on your weaknesses ....in both cases you would have spent the same amount of time studying but the latter method will definitely net you a better score.

3. Your "intelligence" (arguably measured by things like an IQ test, SAT score, MCAT score)
My scores on other standardized tests were above average but not stellar. Does this make it unlikely that I'll get a top-notch Step 1 score?

i was about to say that there is no correlation until i decided to look up what percentile my for the MCAT score was ...turns out its 87-90.5 ...and my step 1 score (according to the best unofficial estimates on here) correlates to 91-93 percentile ...so that's surprisingly close. in general though i think "intelligence" always plays a role in any test. But I dont think you can use your SAT or MCAT score to try and predict how well you'll do on the step 1 because i think the absolute most important thing about step 1 is adequate preparation

 

[blueboyscholar]

i'll bite....



i think those who honor many classes first ad second year will most likely do very well on step 1 however if your grades weren't anything to write home about during the preclinical years you can absolutely pull off a great step 1 score if you put in the effort. I think learning the material is the most important thing during the first two years ...that might not always translate into good grades or honors and that's perfectly fine since it pays off in the long run.

Couldn't agree more. All of my classmates who honored EVERY class did nothing more than memorize all of the ppt material presented during lecture. I only honored 2 classes, but LEARNED the material very well. I'm a textbook reader. It takes longer, but you learn to understand the complete picture. My grades in no way reflected my true knowledge gained because I was learning stuff that was not presented during lectures, in addition to learning the lectured material. I'll get my Step scores next Wed, so take everything I say w/ a grain of salt; but, I walked out of there thinking the exam was easy (like missing <20 questions MAX). I'm sure if I break 270, none of my classmates will believe it or they will think I got lucky. I can't say I'd blame them, considering my grades won't necessarily end up correlating to my score.

 

[Paroxetine]

MCAT correlates least I'd say. Step 1 is purely what you know. MCAT you can get by with being a good test taker/strategy.

I agree that MCAT is easier to get by w/ strategy vs step 1 but the nature of the test is different. If the MCAT is ALL bio then the story would be similar to step 1. On the other hand if the MCAT is ALL physical sciences then those who have no good foundations in it will suffer. The foundation is easier in bio section as it is memorization, I will give me view later in the post. The foundation is the difference in why 1 is easier to prepare for than the other; you can logically figure things out in physics if you have a solid foundation (which doesnt require much memorization but good logic and understandin of basic laws of nature). All in all, these tests both require strategy and thinking but the nature of it makes step 1 require a lot more time than the MCAT.

Generally those who did well in MS1/2 put in a decent amount of time and likewise would put in time for step 1 so there's a correlation there but it's more so the 'hard working' component. Of course the more you study the more information you can retain, our brain retains information via many different ways and one of them is repetition. Step 1 score also of course has a correlation with MCAT, SAT because all of these test requires some component of intelligence. Those who are more intelligent are better at integrating information than others and memorize faster, n likewise those who are not can spend more time and retain the same amount of information with a lot more effort.

So effort, hard work and time plays a huge role in how well you do on Step 1. Intelligence definitely plays a role too like i said before, those who are smarter links things faster and finds ways to memorize things easier and see the big picture easier (physiology for example; is it easier to brute force memorize something or learn the mechanisms and the logic?). Nonetheless hard work is the most important so time spent is really important. There's a lot of thinking in this test but without the knowledge and foundation which unfortunately requires a lot of memorization, one cannot use his brain to think bc there's nothing to think on.

Another thing to take into consideration is the mentality of students. Some may say that MCAT is the most important test for a person who wants to get into medical school; but look at the grand scheme of things, many people will say that Step 1 is way more important as it is such a crucial factor that affects what road you will take on as a doctor. (38 MCAT, 220 Step vs 28 MCAT, 250 Step). Yes MCAT is important but once you get into medical school that has no bearing on residency; someone who scores a 240+ at a no name school (lets say ranked 100) and someone who scores a 220 at a top 10 school given that the other parts of the app/interview are similar, the residency will take the 240+. Many people realize this and study a lot harder for the Step 1 compared to the MCAT (I know the effort I put in for step 1 was way more that what I put in for the MCAT). The magnitude of this test makes most people study extra hard so it's not reliable to compare this to MCAT. If people put in the same amount of time they did for step 1 for the MCAT, I'm almost sure they would've done way better on the MCAT, I know I would've.

I didn't put in enough time for MCAT (I did get 99 percentile on the physical science section which was less memorization and more thinking, I barely prepared for it bc to me it was so logical and came so naturally; I did a little lower on bio which required a foundation that is more memory intensive than physical sciences... you cant really figure out which reactions happened for some orgo compound unless you've memorized/learned them, it's not something you can entirely figure out from scratch like physics which has logical laws/rules) bc i didnt put in the time for bio, I scored lower than my physics section. My foundation wasn't as strong bc the foundation for bio requires memorization (=time). On the other hand I put in time for step 1 and scored pretty decent, > 1 SD above the mean.

All of these tests require you to think, the only difference is the foundation, Step 1's foundation is memory heavy, MCAT is less so; and the less memory heavy the easier it is to do well with less time spent. MCAT is way less memorization and the time spent is not nearly as much. For Step 1, I spent ~10 hrs/day for 4.5 weeks of studyin that's 10 x 7 x 4.5 = 315 hrs. The MCAT i took no classes and just bought a book and did some questions, I'd say max I spent like < 70 hrs total. If I spent 315 hours on the MCAT, I'm almost sure I would've gotten 3-4 points higher. Because of the intense amount of information we need to know for step 1, some people aren't down to memorize that much (they did it for bio of mcat but that's nothing compared to step 1's information) and think that logic can get by but there's no foundation w/ no knowledge, the foundation of step 1 is the memorization and you're crippled no matter how genius ur brain can think if you have no foundation; this is one reason why some ppl w/ high mcat scores score lower than their 'potential' step 1 score, they simply didn't put enough time to establish the foundation.

For those who think it's a memorization test, a large part of it is but a lot of it also requires thinkin with the information you know. You think someone who can regurgitate word associations can do realli well on the test if he cannot decipher what's important and think? I doubt it. If the step 1 didnt require you to think then all questions should be 1 liners but it isnt, ANYONE can memorize, but you know the best doctors are the ones who can solve the problems, it's easy to ask what's X? what's Y? more importantly is, how do you apply this knowledge? How fast can you figure it out, thinking is involved. How do you differentiate X from Y in a clinical scenario? it's using the information you have at hand and apply them logically. How do you know to use sine and not cosine for some angle calculation, it's using the information they gave u and applying it. Drug X causes this side effect? some ppl brute force it, a lot of them actualli can be figured out. what if we change this group on the drug, what happens to this and that, is the side effect worse or better, etc, this all requires thinking but u cant think if u dont know the MOA, the compound, wht the group that was change did, what does the new group do to the overall structure, etc.

This is my view on this, not trying to say I'm right but I think there's a correlation with all of these and that step 1 is not a memorization test (it is partially), if it is then anyone can be a doctor if all you have to do is memorize and there would be no such thing as Ddx (a Ddx requires application of knowledge and thinking)

 

[blueboyscholar]

I like the last post. Just wrote exactly what I think but have been too lazy to put into words. Bravo, and thanks!

 

[iState]

1. Highly correlated
2. Highly correlated up until about 8 weeks of studying, after which there is no significant gain in score. The rate plateaus out between 4 and 6 weeks
3. MCAT and SAT scores are not highly correlated

Based on this, would you say that it is valuable to study your school notes when preparing for the exam? Just wondering...I've heard differing opinions.

 

[Tig2575]

Based on this, would you say that it is valuable to study your school notes when preparing for the exam? Just wondering...I've heard differing opinions.

Not at all, though I personally kept my school notes on-hand in case I had a question pop into my head that I knew could be found directly in my syllabus. Your second year performance, syllabi, books, etc, lay the foundation for the knowledge that Step 1 tests on. That foundation takes months to build, and trying to learn or re-learn it over the 4-6 weeks that you'll be studying for the test is not an effective use of your time. Your study period should be focused specifically on review books, which help you solidify the basic concepts and extraordinary detail that the majority of your step 1 questions will be dependent on.

The 9 months you spend in second year building your foundation (and the holes in it you may have from studying less-than-diligently during that time) really can't be compressed into your boards studying time.

 

[tco]

i was about to say that there is no correlation until i decided to look up what percentile my for the MCAT score was ...turns out its 87-90.5 ...and my step 1 score (according to the best unofficial estimates on here) correlates to 91-93 percentile ...so that's surprisingly close. in general though i think "intelligence" always plays a role in any test. But I dont think you can use your SAT or MCAT score to try and predict how well you'll do on the step 1 because i think the absolute most important thing about step 1 is adequate preparation

You actually likely "improved" quite a bit. Many who took the MCAT did not make it to medical school, so, for the step 1 exam, you're competing against a tougher field.

 

[Tig2575]

i was about to say that there is no correlation until i decided to look up what percentile my for the MCAT score was ...turns out its 87-90.5 ...and my step 1 score (according to the best unofficial estimates on here) correlates to 91-93 percentile ...so that's surprisingly close. in general though i think "intelligence" always plays a role in any test. But I dont think you can use your SAT or MCAT score to try and predict how well you'll do on the step 1 because i think the absolute most important thing about step 1 is adequate preparation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I find it a bit depressing that there are people here who've passed step 1 and don't understand simple evidence-based concepts (like the utter uselessness of anecdotal evidence.)

 

[blueboyscholar]

I find it depressing that sometimes I can't figure out the point of some posts.

 

[235009]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

I find it a bit depressing that there are people here who've passed step 1 and don't understand simple evidence-based concepts (like the utter uselessness of anecdotal evidence.)

if u kept reading you would've seen that i didn't use this as any sort of "evidence" and i actually concluded that you can't use SAT and MCAT scores to predict your step 1 score and that there is no association or correlation

i know its really easy to be an a-hole on the internet but if you're going to go out of your way to do so at least read and try to understand the whole post. also be careful about going around accusing people of not understanding concepts when they in fact have advanced degrees in said concepts.

 

[blueboyscholar]

if u kept reading you would've seen that i didn't use this as any sort of "evidence" and i actually concluded that you can't use SAT and MCAT scores to predict your step 1 score and that there is no association or correlation

i know its really easy to be an a-hole on the internet but if you're going to go out of your way to do so at least read and try to understand the whole post. also be careful about going around accusing people of not understanding concepts when they in fact have advanced degrees in said concepts.

Nice! I thought the ostentation of that post was about the most offensive I've seen on here in a while. By his/her own logic, everything he/she has ever posted, or anyone else on here for that matter, is open to attack. EVERYTHING posted on here, with very few exceptions, is anecdotal evidence. Tig, it's just completely ******ed to post a completely anecdotal 1000 word essay on your Step 1 experience, and then rudely attack someone on here for doing just that. I can go on, but I'm sure you get the point (after all, you did break 270 on the step).

 

[copingmethods]

My school showed us data that in recent classes there was a positive correlation between:
1) MCAT scores and Step 1 scores
2) Grades in the first two years and Step 1 scores

I think r was somewhere in the range of 0.6-0.7.