In our second year PCM course, our student-run session focused on medical student mental health and depression. Many mental health issues that begin in medical school continue as chronic conditions into practice. The session included the screening of a movie on physician depression and suicide (
http://www.doctorswithdepression.org/) and a review of the high rates of depression among medical students (
http://www.ohsu.edu/pcmonline/docs/Out_of_the_Silence__Confronting.13%20(1).pdf).
My small group talked about the structural elements in medical school training that contribute unnecessarily to student stress and depression. With that in mind, an article in May's Journal of Academic Medicine caught my eye. The article title,
"A Change to Pass/Fail Grading in the First Two Years at One Medical School Results in Improved Psychological Well-Being" (Academic Medicine, Vol. 84, No. 5 / May 2009). The article followed performance and measures of student well-being at University of Virginia following a shift to a pass-fail grading system. The authors concluded that a change in grading from letter grades to pass/fail in the first two years of medical school conferred distinct advantages to medical students, in terms of improved psychological well-being and satisfaction, without any reduction in performance in courses or clerkships, USMLE test scores, success in residency placement, or level of attendance.

OHSU's adherence to a five interval grading system (eg A, B, C, D, F) has been repeatedly questioned by students. Over 40 medical schools in the US have moved to a two-interval grading system as of 2009, including many of the most competitive schools. One of the primary rationales for maintaining the five-interval system relates to a influential paper co-authored by OHSU faculty members in 2000. The article, title "Early Identification of Students at Risk for Poor Academic Performance in Clinical Clerkships", sought a method for early identification of medical students who are at academic risk in order to provide a basis for intervention with individualized remedial programs. The conclusion of the study was subjective grades in the PCM class provided the best indicator for students at risk of poor clinical performance. The findings in this paper have been extrapolated to indicate that the grading system is generally useful in predicting performance during third year clinical clerkships.
Unfortunately, this conclusion that this data supports a five-interval grading system is flawed. First, the authors indicate that the subjective grading from the small group course is a better predictor of success than the basic science courses. The data show largely overlapping confidence intervals of low PCM grades (4.71, 18.98) and low basic science grades (2.96, 13.80). PCM grades are clearly useful predictors of later performance, but the small sample size of 304 students is insufficient to argue that this metric is superior to other measures of performance.
Second, the grading scales in the two courses are not directly comparable due to the different nominal scales and different distributions. As a result, the wider distribution of point-based scoring in PCM creates a larger dynamic range for identifying trends in the data. The different methods for analyzing the two groups inherently favors the identification of trends in the PCM group. It would be interesting to know if these trends would hold if the percentage and nominal grade scores were converted to class ranks and then compared.

Third, this analysis shows that grades in the first two years are useful for identifying poor performers. The authors arbitrarily chose the bottom 20% of performers. The strength of the association among higher performing students is less strong and not directly addressed by the authors. US medical schools are universally support the idea of failing (offering remediation opportunities) to poor performers. This is not an argument against pass-fail. Surprisingly, the authors do not address the fact that "at risk" students could still be identified in a two-interval grading system.
Future evaluation of the grading system and grading policies should more closely examine performance in the top two quintiles. Equal attention should be given maintaining a minimum standard as an emphasis on training excellent physicians who will be leaders in their field.
As we look to the example of University of Virginia, OHSU has an opportunity to change policies with the confidence that students will benefit in many ways. A two-interval system is associated with improved "satisfaction with the quality of my medical education" and "current satisfaction with my personal life during the last month." Beneficial effects were found on students' deep motives, deep strategies, and their intrinsic motivation for studying. Students identified themselves as feeling more like doctors after the change to standards-based (i.e., pass/fail) assessments. Future studies should focus on whether an early focus on two-interval assessment structure improves measures of personal responsibility and professionalism--that the medical education system works so hard to instill.