Serving as an anatomy laboratory teaching assistant does not improve USMLE Step 1 performance

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

ABSTRACT Purpose Teaching can enhance the teacher’s learning through retrieval practice, elaboration, and metacognitive engagement. In anatomy education, near-peer teaching roles such as laboratory teaching assistants (TAs) may therefore benefit not only learners but also the instructors. This study investigated whether serving as an anatomy TA is associated with improved performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1. It was hypothesized that medical students who taught anatomy would demonstrate higher Step 1 scores due to the cognitive benefits of teaching. Methods Sixty second-year medical students were identified who served as anatomy TAs in a donor-based physical therapy course over seven academic years. Each was matched to a peer from the same graduating class with similar anatomy course performance but no TA experience. De-identified Step 1 scores were obtained from institutional records. An independent samples t-test compared Step 1 scores between groups. Results The mean Step 1 score was 238.0 (SD = 19.7) for TAs and 236.1 (SD = 16.5) for matched controls. This difference was not statistically significant (t(118) = 0.573, p = 0.568). Conclusions Medical students who served as anatomy TAs did not perform significantly better on the USMLE Step 1 than their peers. These findings suggest that, under the conditions of this study, participation in a near-peer teaching role did not translate into measurable gains on standardized testing. Educators should consider that while teaching may support professional development and anatomical understanding, additional instructional design elements may be needed to align these experiences with exam-related learning outcomes.
Full text 1,804 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Purpose Teaching can enhance the teacher’s learning through retrieval practice, elaboration, and metacognitive engagement. In anatomy education, near-peer teaching roles such as laboratory teaching assistants (TAs) may therefore benefit not only learners but also the instructors. This study investigated whether serving as an anatomy TA is associated with improved performance on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1. It was hypothesized that medical students who taught anatomy would demonstrate higher Step 1 scores due to the cognitive benefits of teaching.

Methods

Sixty second-year medical students were identified who served as anatomy TAs in a donor-based physical therapy course over seven academic years. Each was matched to a peer from the same graduating class with similar anatomy course performance but no TA experience. De-identified Step 1 scores were obtained from institutional records. An independent samples t-test compared Step 1 scores between groups.

Results

The mean Step 1 score was 238.0 (SD = 19.7) for TAs and 236.1 (SD = 16.5) for matched controls. This difference was not statistically significant (t(118) = 0.573, p = 0.568).

Conclusions

Medical students who served as anatomy TAs did not perform significantly better on the USMLE Step 1 than their peers. These findings suggest that, under the conditions of this study, participation in a near-peer teaching role did not translate into measurable gains on standardized testing. Educators should consider that while teaching may support professional development and anatomical understanding, additional instructional design elements may be needed to align these experiences with exam-related learning outcomes. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-26T02:00:01.498150+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0