AM Last Page

Abstract

Acknowledgments:The author would like to thank the following AAMC personnel for reviewing earlier drafts of this Last Page: Karen Mitchell and Cynthia Searcy. Author contact: mkroopnick@aamc.org In the spring of 2015, potential physicians will take the MCAT 2015 exam, the newest version of the MCAT exam. The MR5 Committee (the advisory committee for the MCAT 2015 exam) redesigned the exam to test the academic competencies * that tomorrow's physicians will need to know to succeed in medical school. The design is based on survey responses from over 2,700 medical school and baccalaureate faculty members and feedback from expert panelists and participants in over 90 outreach events. The MCAT 2015 exam will, like the current exam (the MCAT 1991 exam, introduced in 1991), test concepts in the natural sciences, as well as skills in critical analysis and reasoning. Unlike the MCAT 1991 exam, the MCAT 2015 exam will also cover concepts from the behavioral and social sciences. The table below highlights the features the MCAT 2015 exam shares with the MCAT 1991 exam, as well as its new features.

Learning intraprofessional collaboration by participating in a consultation programme: what and how did primary and secondary care trainees learn?

“…Data analysis started as soon as the first data was gathered. So, data gathering and data analysis were iterative processes, thereby promoting dependability [12, 15]. During analysis, subthemes, themes and topics were derived.…”

“…By frequently discussing the analytic process and the findings in the research team, reflexivity and thereby confirmability was achieved [12, 15, 16]. To increase credibility, member checking was applied by sending participants a summary of their focus group interview, giving them the opportunity to review the researchers’ first interpretation [15, 17]. Further triangulation was achieved by discussing emerging questions from one group in the following focus groups [15, 17].…”

Observations of evidence-based medicine in general practice

“…The interviews lasted for approximately 15 min, and started with an introduction on the purpose of the study and the definition of EBM used for the study. Aspects of EBM that had been observed during the consultations were discussed with the GPs to verify the validity of the observations and to clarify the meaning of the observed expressions [16]. For instance, when one GP said ‘We know this’, the observer asked: ‘Where do you know this from?’ Then GPs were asked which EBM-related considerations they had made that the observer would not have perceived.…”

Nothing about us, without us: A case study of a consumer-run organization by and for people on the autism spectrum in the Netherlands

“…It allowed us to gain a deeper understanding of the case that can be potentially applicable in other contexts. In qualitative research, transferability of the findings can be enlarged by a thick description (see Findings section), explaining the sampling strategy (see Interviews section) and discussing the findings' resonance with existing literature (see Discussion section) (Frambach, van der Vleuten, & Durning, 2013). Besides, as Bradbury-Huang (2010) state about gathering local knowledge/case study work: 'I'd (…) suggest that if more local knowledge can be shared through peer review mechanisms, a new stock of knowledge becomes available to all and the possibility of transferability of knowledge may also grow.…”