It's possible to put together multiple data sources. There are certain things everyone reading this will already know. It's like reporting "educational attainment" rather than g or IQ in studies...everyone knows what it implies, you just can't say it. Anyway:
1) Board scores are strongly linked to patient outcomes (this paper)
2) We already know test scores vary strongly with observable characteristics like race
3) It's a very safe bet that board scores vary with race in the same way that MCAT scores vary with race
Therefore,
4) We can have a very good idea of how good a doctor is based on observable characteristics like race
Which is a thing the article immediately, obviously, and loudly implies but of course couldn't say for fear of censorship, losing jobs, etc.
Either you want me to make conclusions based on data or you don't. If you want me to make conclusions based on any of the data you provide, then you must provide all the data necessary to make an end-to-end connection to your claim. You can't use a patchwork of studies and say things like "it's a very safe bet" and "we can have a very good idea" to "put together multiple data sources". That's not science, that's "trust me bro".
Show the actual hard data that correlates board certification exam results and race for this study. As it stands now, we can at best associate this with physician sex.
If I'm using your logic, then, without any evidence whatsoever, I can say that obviously because the correlation between MCAT scores and Step 2 scores is weakened compared to Step 1, then it's a "very safe bet" that there will be little to no correlation for Step 3 and almost entirely eliminated by the time they take the BCE.
Or I can be rigorous and not make data points up in my head to fit some worldview.
> Which is a thing the article immediately, obviously, and loudly implies but of course couldn't say for fear of censorship, losing jobs, etc.
No, it doesn't, because it can't, because they don't have any information about the races of the physicians in the study.
"Or I can be rigorous and not make data points up in my head to fit some worldview."
It seems clear to me that you're sticking your head in the sand, not me. I'm believing the thing that is dangerous to believe, not you. I believe it because it's obviously true.
"actual hard data" would be best. It would be best if we just had board scores split by race. But we don't. We do, however, have lots of other information that makes it very, very clear that there will be significant disparities by race in USMLE boards in pretty much exactly the same pattern we see in MCAT scores.
Here's the meat of it, you can look to the other comments here for the potatoes:
This: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00904... Suggests MEDIAN USMLE step 1 scores for White, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Black applicants were 242, 242, 237, and 232. It's urology specific, and practice specific, though.
This: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hsr2.161 Says The mean (±SD) USMLE step 1 score was significantly greater among non-[Black or Hispanic] applicants as compared to URiM applicants (223.7 ± 19.4 vs 216.1 ± 18.4, P < .01, two-sample t-test). This is at a specific medical school.
...and this is just the result of a casual search.
The people who are best at this sort of thing are economists. They are trained to do causal inference based on patchy, far-from-perfect data. It's totally normal to come to a conclusion (even a very strong one!) using a "patchwork of studies". That's just life. You don't usually get "actual hard data". It's very clear what the pattern in the USMLE data would look like. I bet the effect size would be a little attenuated.
Your epistemic stance, which seems to be "Well we don't have perfect, incontrovertible proof, which means we must act like we don't know anything at all!" is unworkable. You don't do this, I don't do this, the world doesn't permit of this. As a rhetorical move, I can see where you're coming from. It gives you license to not think about the hard thing, and to punish those around you who might. But I'd argue that's not a way forward for us as a whole.
The GP has chosen not to reply, but I would hope they learn from your comment. Especially this part:
> Your epistemic stance, which seems to be "Well we don't have perfect, incontrovertible proof, which means we must act like we don't know anything at all!" is unworkable. You don't do this, I don't do this, the world doesn't permit of this. As a rhetorical move, I can see where you're coming from. It gives you license to not think about the hard thing, and to punish those around you who might. But I'd argue that's not a way forward for us as a whole.
1) Board scores are strongly linked to patient outcomes (this paper)
2) We already know test scores vary strongly with observable characteristics like race
3) It's a very safe bet that board scores vary with race in the same way that MCAT scores vary with race
Therefore,
4) We can have a very good idea of how good a doctor is based on observable characteristics like race
Which is a thing the article immediately, obviously, and loudly implies but of course couldn't say for fear of censorship, losing jobs, etc.