- Joined
- May 3, 1999
- Messages
- 1,122
- Reaction score
- 144
In the July 2010 issue of the JAOA, two osteopathic physicians commented on the need for a new COMLEX to USMLE conversion formula. Using the formula published by Slocum and Louder (JAOA, September 2006) with current COMLEX scores would lead to a misleadingly low USMLE equivalent score. Given the large number of osteopathic students who apply to ACGME-accredited residencies and fellowships, where the USMLE is considered the "gold standard" medical licensing examination, one can intuitively see the need for the ability to compare COMLEX and USMLE scores in a meaningful way.
However, five years after his study was published, Dean Slocum doesn't see it that way. From his response:
Having taken both the USMLE and COMLEX examinations, I can indeed verify that, yes, there is osteopathic content on the COMLEX that is not on the USMLE. This is, ostensibly, the reason for the existence of the COMLEX. But has anything really changed significantly in the last 5 years, content-wise? Interestingly, Dean Slocum never actually cites any objective reference to verify his assertion that the COMLEX of today is meaningfully different than the COMLEX of 5 years ago, as if this is a statement that needs no proof of fact.
Indeed, his entire response seems more political than academic. His asserts that the goal of the COMLEX is to "maintain the distinction between the osteopathic and allopathic medical professions". This is a surprising statement. I don't believe that the NBME writes the USMLE to distinguish themselves from osteopathy. I always thought that that the goal of the COMLEX, as well as the USMLE, was to provide an objective assessment of the medical student's clinical knowledge in order to ensure that the student has the knowledge base necessary to practice medicine.
And, in a parting statement quite dismissive of Parikh and Shiembob's letter:
In addition to the quotation being mistakenly attributed to Disraeli, this is an extremely anti-intellectual statement to make on the issue. Does Dean Slocum really believe that this trite quotation is an appropriate response to give to these osteopathic physicians and to the readership of the JAOA? If this is the way Dean Slocum really feels about the issue, then why did he and Louder do the study in the first place? I believe that Dr. Slocum, being dean of an osteopathic medical school, is putting osteopathic political correctness ahead of the good of the profession, and that there is a need for an objective comparison of USMLE and COMLEX scores. Hopefully someone else will pick up where Dean Slocum felt content to leave off.
However, five years after his study was published, Dean Slocum doesn't see it that way. From his response:
The COMLEX-USA—now more than ever—reflects osteopathic clinical information, while the USMLE clearly does not reflect any osteopathic clinical content. We have not reevaluated the available data for any new correlations between these tests. However, we would expect less correlation now than when we conducted our analysis more than 5 years ago. The American Osteopathic Association's Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation and National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners are obviously concerned that examination content and assessments maintain the distinction between the osteopathic and allopathic medical professions. Each year, the examinations reflect more divergence between these medical professions than was the case during the years we conducted our study. (emphasis mine).
Having taken both the USMLE and COMLEX examinations, I can indeed verify that, yes, there is osteopathic content on the COMLEX that is not on the USMLE. This is, ostensibly, the reason for the existence of the COMLEX. But has anything really changed significantly in the last 5 years, content-wise? Interestingly, Dean Slocum never actually cites any objective reference to verify his assertion that the COMLEX of today is meaningfully different than the COMLEX of 5 years ago, as if this is a statement that needs no proof of fact.
Indeed, his entire response seems more political than academic. His asserts that the goal of the COMLEX is to "maintain the distinction between the osteopathic and allopathic medical professions". This is a surprising statement. I don't believe that the NBME writes the USMLE to distinguish themselves from osteopathy. I always thought that that the goal of the COMLEX, as well as the USMLE, was to provide an objective assessment of the medical student's clinical knowledge in order to ensure that the student has the knowledge base necessary to practice medicine.
And, in a parting statement quite dismissive of Parikh and Shiembob's letter:
As far as the statistics of our study go, I believe that a quotation attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, prime minister of the United Kingdom in 1868 and from 1874 to 1880 (2) says it best: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
In addition to the quotation being mistakenly attributed to Disraeli, this is an extremely anti-intellectual statement to make on the issue. Does Dean Slocum really believe that this trite quotation is an appropriate response to give to these osteopathic physicians and to the readership of the JAOA? If this is the way Dean Slocum really feels about the issue, then why did he and Louder do the study in the first place? I believe that Dr. Slocum, being dean of an osteopathic medical school, is putting osteopathic political correctness ahead of the good of the profession, and that there is a need for an objective comparison of USMLE and COMLEX scores. Hopefully someone else will pick up where Dean Slocum felt content to leave off.
Last edited:
