Cuddy, Monica M.

During the past two decades, anatomy instruction has changed due to curricular reforms in medical schools. Reduction in total hours of anatomy course and cadaver dissection, as well as shifts towards an integrated curricula has raised questions whether changes have had a negative impact on the students’ knowledge of anatomy. Our purpose was to investigate the effect of changes in course hours, curriculum type, and laboratory experience on USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores. Results of 2009 AAA online survey of anatomy course directors from 54 LCME‐accredited schools were matched with USMLE scores for 6,411 examinees taking Step 1 for the first time in 2009. The USMLE scores included Step 1 total test scores, Step 1 gross anatomy sub‐scores, and Step 2 CK total test scores. Analyses of data indicate that for all three USMLE scores, examinees from schools with stand‐alone gross anatomy courses slightly outperformed examinees from schools with integrated curricula. Conversely, the number of course hours had no effect on how students performed on Step 1 or Step 2 CK. Examinees that were exposed to both dissection and prosection slightly outperformed on Step 2 examinees that had dissection only. While these relationships are statistically significant, they may not be practically meaningful and more research is needed to fully explore different aspects of anatomy curricula and retention of anatomy knowledge.

Purpose Minimal attention has been paid to what factors may predict peer nomination or how peer nominations might exhibit a clustering effect. Focusing on the homophily principle that “birds of a feather flock together,” and using a social network analysis approach, the authors investigated how certain student- and/or school-based factors might predict the likelihood of peer nomination, and the clusters, if any, that occur among those nominations. Method In 2013, the Jefferson Longitudinal Study of Medical Education included a special instrument to evaluate peer nominations. A total of 211 (81%) of 260 graduating medical students from the Sidney Kimmel Medical College responded to the peer nomination question. Data were analyzed using a relational contingency table and an ANOVA density model. Results Although peer nominations did not cluster around gender, age, or class rank, those students within an accelerated program, as well as those entering certain specialties, were more likely to nominate each other. The authors suggest that clerkships in certain specialties, as well as the accelerated program, may provide structured opportunities for students to connect and integrate, and that these opportunities may have an impact on peer nomination. The findings suggest that social network analysis is a useful approach to examine various aspects of peer nomination processes. Conclusions The authors discuss implications regarding harnessing social cohesion within clinical clerkships, the possible development of siloed departmental identity and in-group favoritism, and future research possibilities.