Participation and selection effects of a voluntary selection process

Schripsema, Nienke R.; Trigt, Anke M. van; Lucieer, Susanna M.; Wouters, Anouk; Croiset, Gerda; Themmen, Axel P. N.; Borleffs, Jan C. C.; Cohen-Schotanus, Janke

doi:10.1007/s10459-017-9762-5

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apparently, in predicting academic performance, participation in a time‐consuming voluntary selection procedure is more important than acceptance . Unfortunately, the earlier reported participation effects with respect to study delay and lower grades were not consistently confirmed in a follow‐up multi‐site study . Hence, the conclusion was that participation effects seem to be mediated by institutional differences in curricula and in selection procedures …”

Section: Non‐grades‐based Selection In the Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…31,33,37 Unfortunately, the earlier reported participation effects with respect to study delay and lower grades were not consistently confirmed in a follow-up multi-site study. 38 Hence, the conclusion was that participation effects seem to be mediated by institutional differences in curricula and in selection procedures. 38 Assessing pre-university extracurricular activities Several Dutch medical schools, including our own, have operationalised non-academic skills by examining applicants' extracurricular activities during pre-university education (puECAs).…”

Section: A Participation Effect?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…38 Hence, the conclusion was that participation effects seem to be mediated by institutional differences in curricula and in selection procedures. 38 Assessing pre-university extracurricular activities Several Dutch medical schools, including our own, have operationalised non-academic skills by examining applicants' extracurricular activities during pre-university education (puECAs). 31,33 This method has the advantage of an increased authenticity, because it reflects students' development over the last couple of years instead of being based on a 'single' test administration.…”

Section: A Participation Effect?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lessons learned from 15 years of non-grades-based selection for medical school

Stegers‐Jager

2017

Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ContextThirty years ago, it was suggested in the Edinburgh Declaration that medical school applicants should be selected not only on academic, but also on non‐academic, attributes. The main rationale behind extending medical school selection procedures with the evaluation of (non‐academic) personal qualities is that this will lead to the selection of students who will perform better as a doctor than those who are selected on the basis of academic measures only. A second rationale is the expectation that this will lead to a representative health workforce as a result of reduced adverse impact. The aims of this paper are (i) to describe what can be learned about the use of selection criteria other than grades from over 15 years of Dutch experience and (ii) to summarise current knowledge on the issue of adverse impact in relation to non‐grades‐based selection.MethodsA narrative review was undertaken of the (published) evidence that has resulted from non‐grades‐based school‐specific selection procedures in the Netherlands and from recent explorations of the effect of the use of non‐grades‐based selection criteria on student diversity.ResultsThe Dutch evidence is grouped into five key themes: the effect of participation in voluntary selection procedures, the assessment of pre‐university extracurricular activities, the use of work samples, Dutch experiences with situational judgement tests and the effects of changing circumstances. This is followed by several lessons learned for medical schools that aim to increase their student diversity.ConclusionOver the last 30 years, important steps towards reliable and valid methods for measuring non‐academic abilities have been taken. The current paper describes several lessons that can be learned from the steps taken in the Dutch context. The importance of sharing evidence gathered around the globe and building on this evidence to reach our goal of predicting who will be a good doctor is acknowledged.

show abstract

Section: Non‐grades‐based Selection In the Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: A Participation Effect?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Participation Effect?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lessons learned from 15 years of non-grades-based selection for medical school

Stegers‐Jager

2017

Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research studying the three admission groups in this setting has yielded inconsistent findings. Top GPA students consistently outperform other students in academic and non-academic performance outcomes [3,4,[7][8][9][10], while comparisons between selected students and lotteryadmitted students on various study performance outcomes yield either no statistically significant differences or show that selected students perform significantly better than lottery-admitted students [3,4,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. A Danish study also found that students who were admitted based on a qualitative selection procedure outperformed students admitted based only on their pu-GPA [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bachelor completion and dropout rates of selected, rejected and lottery-admitted medical students in the Netherlands

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Evidence for the effectiveness of the selection of medical students is weak. This study aimed to examine the added value of a two-step selection procedure (first step non-academic, second step academic tests) to a pre-university GPA-based lottery procedure. Because previous research has suggested that participation in selection (regardless of the outcome) is a predictor of study success, this study is the first to include students who initially applied for selection, then refrained from (actively) participating in selection and were eventually admitted through lottery. Methods: Bachelor completion and dropout rates of selected (n = 416) and lottery-admitted students from four cohorts (2006-2009) were compared using logistic regression analysis. Four groups of lottery-admitted students were distinguished: students who were rejected after step 2 (n = 57), were rejected after step 1 (n = 169), withdrew during selection step 1 (n = 42) and students who only applied for lottery (n = 366). Covariates included gender, age, pre-university GPA and cohort. Results: There was a significant association between admission group and obtaining a bachelor degree in three years. Selected students were more likely to obtain a bachelor degree within three years (64.2% versus 51.6%; OR = 1.7) or four years (81.5% versus 74.3%; OR = 1.6) than students who only applied to a lottery (p < 0.05); selected students also seemed more likely to obtain all Year-1 course credits than students who withdrew during step 1 (40.4% versus 21.4%; OR = 2.3; p < 0.05). We found no significant association between dropout and admission groups. Students rejected at step 1 or 2 did not perform significantly different from selected students on any of the outcome measures. Conclusions: The findings indicated that students at risk for study delay in the preclinical phase in our context were more likely to refrain from applying to a demanding selection procedure when a less demanding alternative was available. We found no significant associations between the non-academic and academic selection steps and bachelor completion and dropout rates. These findings suggest that the presence of the selection was more important than these specific selection components. In follow-up research, we plan to investigate the associations between the admission groups and outcome measures in the clinical phase.

show abstract

“…Year-1 performance / course credits GPA: No differences (Hulsman et al, 2007;Wouters et al, 2017b) for 3 out of 4 cohorts (Urlings-Strop et al, 2009;Lucieer et al, 2015) Selected > lottery-admitted (Schripsema et al, 2014;Schripsema et al, 2017;Schreurs et al, 2018b), including rejected lottery-admitted (de Visser et al, 2017); for 1 out of 4 cohorts in 1 out of 4 study years (Urlings-Strop et al, 2009) Progress test: Selected > rejected lottery-admitted (Schreurs et al, 2018b) OSCE: percentage fail (/non-fail): no differences (Schreurs et al, 2018b) percentage good (/non-good): selected > rejected lottery-admitted (Schreurs et al, 2018b) Course credits: No differences (Hulsman et al, 2007;Urlings-Strop et al, 2009;Wouters et al, 2017b); no differences between selected and rejected lottery-admitted (de Visser et al, 2017;Schripsema et al, 2017) Selected and rejected lottery-admitted > lottery-admitted (Schripsema et al, (2014)(de Visser et al, 2017 Selected > rejected lottery-admitted (Schripsema et al, 2017) Selected > lottery (after including early medical school performance this did not remain) Year-2 performance / course credits GPA: No differences between selected and rejected lottery-admitted (Schreurs et al, 2018b) Progress test: Selected > rejected lottery-admitted (Schreurs et al, 2018b) OSCE: percentage fail (/non-fail): no differences (Schreurs et al, 2018b) percentage good (/non-good): selected > rejected lottery-admitted (Schreurs et al, 2018b) Course credits: No differences between selected and lottery-admitted (de Visser et al, 2017) Selected and rejected lottery-admitted > lottery-admitted (Schripsema et al, 2014) Selected > rejected lottery-admitted (de Visser et al, 2017) Year-3 performance / course credits Cognitive tests: Critical Appraisal of a Topic test: no differences for (Schreurs et al, 2018b) Percentage fail...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection and lottery in medical school admissions: who gains and who loses?

Wouters¹,

Croiset²,

Kusurkar³

2018

MedEdPublish

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns related to fairness of medical school admissions through selection have led some scholars to consider selection as an expensive lottery and suggest that lottery may be fairer. This paper considers the issue of selection versus lottery from the perspectives of three groups of stakeholders: 1) applicants, 2) medical schools, and 3) society. This paper contributes to the discussion by addressing advantages and disadvantages of the use of selection and lottery for these stakeholder groups, grounded in the findings from research. Themes that are discussed are reliability and validity issues, perceived influence on selection outcomes and student uptake, effects on student diversity, financial costs, impact on rejected applicants, transparency, and strategic behaviour. For each stakeholder group both lottery and selection yield a combination of advantages and disadvantages, which implies that none of the currently available admissions strategies completely fulfils stakeholders' needs. Research indicates that selection yields only small gains compared to a lottery procedure, while the student diversity, necessary for serving the increasingly diverse patient population, may be compromised. We argue that society's needs should drive admissions policies rather than institutional gains, which means that until a selection procedure is developed that does not disadvantage certain types of students, a lottery procedure should be preferred.

show abstract

Participation and selection effects of a voluntary selection process

Cited by 6 publications

References 19 publications

Lessons learned from 15 years of non-grades-based selection for medical school

Lessons learned from 15 years of non-grades-based selection for medical school

Bachelor completion and dropout rates of selected, rejected and lottery-admitted medical students in the Netherlands

Selection and lottery in medical school admissions: who gains and who loses?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About