Step I to Step II CK score translation question

[justanotherdoc]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi all, I took Step I back in 2004 when scores were still reported by paper. I managed to lose my score report so I have no idea what the mean/stddev from 2004 was. I got a 239 on that. People said it was a decent score at the time. Is that still the case these days? Has the average bumped up?

The reason I ask, I now just took Step 2 CK and opened up my report and it said 249. I got pretty excited but when I read the mean is 229 and the stddev is 23 that made me less impressed. I'm concerned that even though the score is better than my step 1 score, it's actually not an improvement since it's below 1 stddev from the mean. Is this the norm that step 2 ck scores should be 10 points higher than step 1 and indicates roughly equivalent performance on both exams?

That being said, most people seem to say that Step 2 CK scores are irrelevant unless you fail, but i have to feed my neurosis in wondering, if I had gotten a 239 on step II like I did on step I, would that be considered a worse performance?

 

[Instatewaiter]

In 2004 mean was 217 with Std of 23 for step 1. Thus you were right under 1 std. Same for step 2.

Your step 1 percentile: 83rd
Your step 2 percentile: 81st

So pretty comparable although I think the students have probably gotten better in the interum that you were doiing your PhD so you probably did "better" but the quality of students increased the mean significantly. Just my guess.

 

[JeffLebowski]

Hi all, I took Step I back in 2004 when scores were still reported by paper. I managed to lose my score report so I have no idea what the mean/stddev from 2004 was. I got a 239 on that. People said it was a decent score at the time. Is that still the case these days? Has the average bumped up?

The reason I ask, I now just took Step 2 CK and opened up my report and it said 249. I got pretty excited but when I read the mean is 229 and the stddev is 23 that made me less impressed. I'm concerned that even though the score is better than my step 1 score, it's actually not an improvement since it's below 1 stddev from the mean. Is this the norm that step 2 ck scores should be 10 points higher than step 1 and indicates roughly equivalent performance on both exams?

That being said, most people seem to say that Step 2 CK scores are irrelevant unless you fail, but i have to feed my neurosis in wondering, if I had gotten a 239 on step II like I did on step I, would that be considered a worse performance?

I honestly don't think program directors put that much thought into it. Most of them think the 99 stand for the 99th percentile still for crying out loud, and I really doubt they compare national averages to standard deviations and such. It may be more competitive so they see more high scores and are perhaps less impressed then by another high score, but make no mistake a 239 is good and so is a 249, you have nothing to apologize for.

Obviously it depends on the program, the specialty, etc. but you didn't mention any of that info so I'm generalizing.