Student Selection

McGaghie, William C.

doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0462-6_13

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our finding that students admitted based on a top pre‐university GPA performed best is in line with earlier findings showing that previous academic performance is one of the strongest predictors of medical school performance . However, top pre‐university GPA students also achieved the highest possible score in the professionalism course most often.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Selection and study performance: comparing three admission processes within one medical school

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A top pre-university grade point average was the best predictor of performance. For so-called non-academic performance, the multifaceted selection process was efficient in identifying applicants with suitable skills. Participation in the multifaceted selection procedure seems to be predictive of higher performance. Further research is needed to assess whether our results are generalisable to other medical schools.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Selection and study performance: comparing three admission processes within one medical school

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there are meaningful differences between selection for employment and selection for medical education, in many countries, nearly all applicants who accept admission to medical school do go on to graduate and become employed as physicians. This means medical school admission is effectively functioning as a form of employment selection [20–22]. With the near universal matriculation from medical education to practice, the validity argument for medical school admission must consider the ability to predict physician performance [22].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This means medical school admission is effectively functioning as a form of employment selection [20–22]. With the near universal matriculation from medical education to practice, the validity argument for medical school admission must consider the ability to predict physician performance [22]. This is widely acknowledged in medical college mission statements which invariably reflect the inextricable link between academic and professional achievement [23].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analytic perspective on the valid use of subjective human judgement to make medical school admission decisions

Kreiter

O’Shea

Bruen

et al. 2018

Medical Education Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While medical educators appear to believe that admission to the medical school should be governed, at least in part, by human judgement, there has been no systematic presentation of evidence suggesting it improves selection. From a fair testing perspective, legal, ethical, and psychometric considerations, all dictate that the scientific evidence regarding human judgement in selection should be given consideration. To investigate the validity of using human judgements in admissions, multi-disciplinary meta-analytic research evidence from the wider literature is combined with studies from within medical education to provide evidence regarding the fairness and validity of using interviews and holistic review in medical school admissions. Fourteen studies, 6 of which are meta-analytic studies that summarized 292 individual studies, were included in the final review. Within these studies, a total of 33 studies evaluated the reliability of the traditional interview. These studies reveal that the interview has low to moderate reliability (~.42) which significantly limits its validity. This is confirmed by over 100 studies examining interview validity which collectively show interview scores to be moderately correlated with important outcome variables (corrected value ~.29). Meta-analyses of over 150 studies demonstrate that mechanical/formula-based selection decisions produce better results than decisions made with holistic/clinical methods (human judgement). Three conclusions regarding the use of interviews and holistic review are provided by these meta-analyses. First, it is clear that the traditional interview has low reliability and that this significantly limits its validity. Second, the reliable variance from interview scores appears moderately predictive of outcomes that are relevant to consider in medical school admission. And third, the use of holistic review as a method of incorporating human judgement is not a valid alternative to mechanical/statistical approaches as the evidence clearly indicates that mechanistic methods are more predictive, reliable, cost efficient, and transparent.

show abstract

“…Until recently, most medical schools relied on an individual interview as the sole means of evaluating a candidate’s non‐cognitive attributes 1–3 . In the last 6 years, however, alternative admissions systems based on multiple, structured, evaluations of non‐cognitive parameters have been introduced 4–7 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The National Institute for Testing and Evaluation (NITE), Jerusalem, is responsible for the development, administration and scoring of two admissions systems used by three medical schools and one dental school. In 2003, inspired by the MMI model, Tel Aviv University’s Sackler School of Medicine, along with NITE and the Israel Centre for Medical Simulation (MSR), developed an assessment centre named MOR, which utilises a diverse array of evaluation tools, 3 including eight MMI‐like stations (nine, as of 2008) and two customised questionnaires (the Judgement and Decision‐making Questionnaire [JDQ] and the objective standardised Biographical Questionnaire [BQ]), that focus on candidates’ judgement and decision‐making abilities and on their background. The new admissions system was first implemented in 2004.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability estimates: behavioural stations and questionnaires in medical school admissions

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CONTEXT Assessment centres used in evaluating the non-cognitive attributes of medical school candidates must generate scores that reflect as accurate a measurement as possible of these attributes. Thus far, reliability coefficients for such centres have been based on limited samples and individual administrations, without reference to the error of variance that may result from retesting, or from the existence of multiple centres designed to measure the same attributes. METHODSThe National Institute for Testing and Evaluation in Israel has developed and administered two assessment centres: MOR is used by two medical schools and one dental school, and MIRKAM by another medical school. Each centre comprises eight or nine behavioural stations, a standardised biographical questionnaire, and a judgement and decision-making questionnaire. We calculated generalisability coefficients for each centre's eight or nine stations by year, composite reliability coefficients for the overall assessment centres, test-retest correlation coefficients for repeaters, and a correlation coefficient between the centres. DISCUSSION The minimal reliability desirable for high-stakes decision making (0.80) was obtained only for 14 or 15 stations with questionnaires. Nevertheless, the values obtained are considerably higher than reliability coefficients for single interviews. The questionnaires contribute significantly to the accuracy of the measurement. These reliability measures constitute an upper threshold for measures of validity.

show abstract

Student Selection

Cited by 11 publications

References 49 publications

Selection and study performance: comparing three admission processes within one medical school

Selection and study performance: comparing three admission processes within one medical school

A meta-analytic perspective on the valid use of subjective human judgement to make medical school admission decisions

Reliability estimates: behavioural stations and questionnaires in medical school admissions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About