Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Randomized Trial of a Year-Long USMLE Step 1 Preparation Near-Peer Teaching Program

  • Original research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Near-peer teaching (NPT) is a peer-assisted learning method that has been adopted by medical schools as studies have reported benefits to both tutors and tutees. Published studies suggest students may benefit from NPT programs when preparing for the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 exam, but they did not use a randomized controlled trial methodology. To determine the impact of a year-long NPT preparation program for the Step 1 examination, we conducted a randomized-controlled trial among second-year medical students at New York Medical College during the 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 academic years. Students who enrolled in the study were invited to complete a post-exam survey, and Step 1 examination scores of intervention and control groups were compared, controlling for preexisting academic differences and demographic traits. While the majority of students reported NPT program participation was a valuable use of their time, we found no significant difference in Step 1 scores between intervention and control groups. Notably, students identifying as female, underrepresented in medicine (UIM) or socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) enrolled in higher proportions compared to the combined M2 student body of the 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 academic years. Our results may highlight the limitations of NPT programs for board examination preparation and inform the future design of peer-assisted learning programs within medical schools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Anonymized datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Allen VL, Feldman RS. Learning through tutoring. J Exp Educ Routledge. 1973;42:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Buckley S, Zamora J. Effects of participation in a cross year peer tutoring programme in clinical examination skills on volunteer tutors’ skills and attitudes towards teachers and teaching. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schmidt HG, Moust JHC. What makes a tutor effective? A structural equations modelling approach to learning in problem-based curricula [Internet]. ERIC; 1995 [cited 2021 Feb 2]. Available from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED385189.

  4. Lockspeiser TM, O’Sullivan P, Teherani A, Muller J. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13:361–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nelson AJ, Nelson SV, Linn AMJ, Raw LE, Kildea HB, Tonkin AL. Tomorrow’s educators… today? Implementing near-peer teaching for medical students. Med Teach Taylor & Francis. 2013;35:156–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Shankar PR, Singh B, Singh AK, Karki BS, Thapa TP. Student perception about peer-assisted learning sessions in a medical school in Nepal. 2011. Available from: https://static.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2459.

  7. Hall S, Stephens J, Andrade T, Davids J, Powell M, Border S. Perceptions of junior doctors and undergraduate medical students as anatomy teachers: investigating distance along the near-peer teaching spectrum. Anat Sci Educ Wiley Online Library. 2014;7:242–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shenoy A, Petersen KH. Peer Tutoring in Preclinical Medical Education: A Review of the Literature [Internet]. Medical Science Educator. 2020. p. 537–44. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-019-00895-y.

  9. Gallan AJ, Offner GD, Symes K. Vertical integration of biochemistry and clinical medicine using a near-peer learning model. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. Wiley Online Library; 2016;44:507–16.

  10. Jackson TA, Evans DJR. Can medical students teach? A near-peer-led teaching program for year 1 students. Adv Physiol Educ. 2012;36:192–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Green M, Jones P, Thomas JX Jr. Selection criteria for residency: results of a national program directors survey. Acad Med. 2009;84:362–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Weissbart SJ, Stock JA, Wein AJ. Program directors’ criteria for selection into urology residency. Urology. 2015;85:731–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. United States Medical Licensing Examination [Internet]. [cited 2020 Sep 12]. Available from: https://usmle.org/incus/.

  14. Negaard M, Assimacopoulos E, Harland K, Van Heukelom J. Emergency medicine residency selection criteria: an update and comparison. AEM Educ Train. 2018;2:146–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mitsouras K, Dong F, Safaoui MN, Helf SC. Student academic performance factors affecting matching into first-choice residency and competitive specialties. BMC Med Educ. Springer; 2019;19:241.

  16. Raman T, Alrabaa RG, Sood A, Maloof P, Benevenia J, Berberian W. Does residency selection criteria predict performance in orthopaedic surgery residency? Clin Orthop Relat Res Springer. 2016;474:908–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sharma A, Schauer DP, Kelleher M, Kinnear B, Sall D, Warm E. USMLE Step 2 CK: Best predictor of multimodal performance in an internal medicine residency. J Grad Med Educ. meridian.allenpress.com; 2019;11:412–9.

  18. Moynahan KF. The current use of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Scores: holistic admissions and student well-being are in the balance. Acad Med. 2018;93:963–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Slavin SJ, Chibnall JT. Finding the Why, Changing the How: Improving the Mental Health of Medical Students, Residents, and Physicians. Acad. Med. 2016;1194–6.

  20. Rubright JD, Jodoin M, Barone MA. Examining demographics, prior academic performance, and United States Medical Licensing Examination Scores. Acad Med. 2019;94:364–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Med Teach. 2007;29:591–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Alcamo AM, Davids AR, Way DP, Joanne Lynn D, Vandre DD. The Impact of a Peer-Designed and -Led USMLE Step 1 Review Course: Improvement in Preparation and Scores [Internet]. Academic Medicine. 2010:S45–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181ed1cb9.

  23. Tanenbaum EJ, Johnson JH, Jordan E, Cottral J, Tenore C, Burton WB, et al. An effective evidence-based student run near-peer support group for the USMLE Step 1 Exam. Medical Science Educator. 2016;26:691–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Blank WA, Blankenfeld H, Vogelmann R, Linde K, Schneider A. Can near-peer medical students effectively teach a new curriculum in physical examination? BMC Med Educ. 2013;13:165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Turner SR, White JS, Poth C, Rogers WT. Learning the CanMEDS roles in a near-peer shadowing program: a mixed methods randomized control trial. Med Teach. 2012;34:888–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Davies A, Macleod R, Bennett-Britton I, McElnay P, Bakhbakhi D, Sansom J. E-learning and near-peer teaching in electrocardiogram education: a randomised trial. Clin Teach. 2016;13:227–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Percentile Ranks for the MCAT Exam [Internet]. [cited 2020 Sep 12]. Available from: https://www.aamc.org/services/mcat-admissions-officers/resources/percentile-ranks.

  28. Mushambi R. Utilization of academic support programs by African students [Internet]. Iowa State University; 1994 [cited 2021 Mar 6]. Available from: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/10875/.

  29. Grillo MC, Leist CW. Academic support as a predictor of retention to graduation: new insights on the role of tutoring, learning assistance, and supplemental instruction. J Coll Stud Ret. SAGE Publications Inc; 2013;15:387–408.

  30. Davis WK, Oh MS, Anderson RM, Gruppen L, Nairn R. Influence of a highly focused case on the effect of small-group facilitators’ content expertise on students’ learning and satisfaction. Acad Med. 1994;69:663–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express appreciation to Kelsey Polikoff for assistance at various stages of this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA

    Sina Dadafarin

  2. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA

    Kristina H. Petersen

Authors
  1. Sina Dadafarin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristina H. Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SD and KHP conceived of experimental design, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. SD carried out the experiment. Both authors approve of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sina Dadafarin.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the New York Medical College Institutional Review Board (IRB #12199).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dadafarin, S., Petersen, K.H. Randomized Trial of a Year-Long USMLE Step 1 Preparation Near-Peer Teaching Program. Med.Sci.Educ. 31, 1065–1071 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01275-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01275-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation