Number
109
Name
Beyond The Numbers: Understanding Why At-Risk Students Succeed, and Low-Risk Students Fail Complex Level 2-CE
Date & Time
Monday, June 8, 2026, 6:00 PM - 7:30 PM
Location Name
Oglethorpe Ballroom
Speakers
Authors
Neva Thompson, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
Diana Rowe, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
Stephanie Combs, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
Shubha Kayarthodi, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
Presentation Topic(s)
Assessment
Description
PURPOSE
A direct correlation exists between performances on year three clinical
NBOME end-of-clerkship specialty exams, COMATs, and the COMLEX Level 2 CE
(L2CE) licensing exam. Students' COMAT performance provides a basis for
assessing risk factors linked to L2CE outcomes. The purpose of this report is
to explore why some students who have low metrics for success pass L2CE and
why others with high metrics for success are unsuccessful on L2CE.
METHODS
A survey probing L2CE expectations, preparation strategies, and
non-academic influences was developed in SurveyMonkey and distributed to four
groups: (1) low COMAT mean and failed L2CE, (2) low COMAT mean and passed
L2CE, (3) high COMAT mean and failed L2CE, and (4) high COMAT mean and passed
L2CE. Students submitted responses anonymously via group-specific links.
Analysis identified patterns within and across groups.
RESULTS
Among 901 students across two cohorts and three campuses, key differences
emerged in all groups. Group 2 (low COMAT mean and passed L2CE) reported
structured preparation schedules, peer study groups, and proactive
help-seeking. Group 3 (high COMAT mean and failed L2CE) demonstrated
overconfidence, minimal dedicated study time, and underestimation of exam
difficulty. External stressors (financial pressure, family obligations,
mental health challenges) appeared across groups but were managed
differently. Performance data of these two cohorts was compared with two
prior cohorts. The number of high-performing students failing L2CE increased
annually, while Group 4 failures (high COMAT mean and passed L2CE) emerged
only in the most recent cohort, suggesting shifting risk profiles.
CONCLUSIONS
This retrospective study reveals that COMAT performance alone inadequately
predicts L2CE success. Non-cognitive factors—including study habits,
self-awareness, stress management, support structures, and resource
utilization—significantly influence outcomes independent of academic metrics.
These findings enable earlier identification of at-risk students and inform
targeted interventions addressing both cognitive and non-cognitive barriers
to licensure success.
A direct correlation exists between performances on year three clinical
NBOME end-of-clerkship specialty exams, COMATs, and the COMLEX Level 2 CE
(L2CE) licensing exam. Students' COMAT performance provides a basis for
assessing risk factors linked to L2CE outcomes. The purpose of this report is
to explore why some students who have low metrics for success pass L2CE and
why others with high metrics for success are unsuccessful on L2CE.
METHODS
A survey probing L2CE expectations, preparation strategies, and
non-academic influences was developed in SurveyMonkey and distributed to four
groups: (1) low COMAT mean and failed L2CE, (2) low COMAT mean and passed
L2CE, (3) high COMAT mean and failed L2CE, and (4) high COMAT mean and passed
L2CE. Students submitted responses anonymously via group-specific links.
Analysis identified patterns within and across groups.
RESULTS
Among 901 students across two cohorts and three campuses, key differences
emerged in all groups. Group 2 (low COMAT mean and passed L2CE) reported
structured preparation schedules, peer study groups, and proactive
help-seeking. Group 3 (high COMAT mean and failed L2CE) demonstrated
overconfidence, minimal dedicated study time, and underestimation of exam
difficulty. External stressors (financial pressure, family obligations,
mental health challenges) appeared across groups but were managed
differently. Performance data of these two cohorts was compared with two
prior cohorts. The number of high-performing students failing L2CE increased
annually, while Group 4 failures (high COMAT mean and passed L2CE) emerged
only in the most recent cohort, suggesting shifting risk profiles.
CONCLUSIONS
This retrospective study reveals that COMAT performance alone inadequately
predicts L2CE success. Non-cognitive factors—including study habits,
self-awareness, stress management, support structures, and resource
utilization—significantly influence outcomes independent of academic metrics.
These findings enable earlier identification of at-risk students and inform
targeted interventions addressing both cognitive and non-cognitive barriers
to licensure success.