Motivation, medical school admissions, and student performance

Selecting medical students

“…The findings of Rhoads et al (1974) highlight the differences. Only half of the students who excelled in basic science did so in the clinical course, while 70% of those who excelled in the clinical course had not done so in the basic sciences (see also Green et al 1991).…”

“…the instruments must have high (predictive) validity . The present norm is to select students who are expected to perform well at preclinical examinations, but the disappointing absence of any worthwhile correlation between preclinical and clinical examination performance (Rhoads et al 1974; Murden et al 1978; McGaghie 1990; Mitchell 1990 inter alia ) is of concern and reduces the validity of such selection instruments, which are ostensibly for selecting students who will be good graduates.…”

“…Turner et al 1974; Keck et al 1979). In the clinical environment the successful and competent student has been found to be motivated, mature, emotionally stable, have low anxiety levels, possess good judgement and perception, show a high degree of decisiveness and assertiveness and be moderately extrovert (Rhoads et al 1974; Turner et al 1974; Willoughby et al 1979; Westin et al 1986). In other studies maturity, integrity, patient rapport, and good peer relationships have been found to correlate with aspects of good clinical performance but these qualities were not found to correlate with prior academic achievement as measured by grades and cognitive tests (Murden et al 1978; Willoughby et al 1979).…”

Do conventional and innovative medical schools recruit different students?

“…Although the issue of students' selection into medical school has received widespread attention in the medical literature (Cook 1979; Weinyartner 1980; Lockhart 1981; Knight 1981), this question has never been investigated. So far, empirical research has centred around the identification of the best predictors of admission into medical schools (McManus & Richards 1986) and the evaluation of selection criteria in terms of their usefulness in predicting performance in medical school and in medical practice (Gough 1967; Rhoads et al 1974; Richardson 1980; Erdmann 1984; Markert 1986; Powis et al 1988). By comparing the characteristics of students selected in an innovative school with those of students selected in more conventional schools, this study will help determine whether innovative schools are recruiting a new breed of medical students.…”

Prediction of clinical performance of medical students: an integrative approach to evaluation

“…The search for valid predictors of clinical performance in the pre‐clinical phases has been described across a plethora of studies, most of which agree that academic achievements in the early phases are not related to later clinical performance (Wingrad & Williamson, 1973; Rhoads et al , 1974). Several reasons may account for this poor predictive value.…”