Using the personal background preparation survey to identify health science professions students at risk for adverse academic events

Johnson, Craig W.; Johnson, Ronald C.; McKee, John C.; Kim, Mi-Ra

doi:10.1007/s10459-009-9156-4

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The challenge for medical schools worldwide is to create academic environments that stimulate students to improve their study progress, without compromising their health . The urge to seek measures to improve student progress is driven by the substantial investment in students made by both the students themselves and society . A possible strategy for achieving this involves the implementation of academic dismissal policies that require students to make satisfactory study progress .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender‐specific effects of raising Year‐1 standards on medical students' academic performance and stress levels

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Medical schools are challenged to create academic environments that stimulate students to improve their study progress without compromising their well-being.Objectives: This prospective comparative cohort study investigated the effects of raising Year-1 standards on academic performance and on students' chronic psychological and biological stress levels. Methods:In a Dutch medical school, students within the last Bachelor's degree cohort (n = 410) exposed to the 40/60 (67%) credit Year-1 standard (67%-credit cohort)were compared with students within the first cohort (n = 413) exposed to a 60/60 (100%) credit standard (100%-credit cohort). Main outcome measures were Year-1 pass rate (academic performance), mean score on the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS, psychological stress) and hair cortisol concentration (HCC, biological stress). Results:Year-1 pass rates were significantly higher in the 100%-credit cohort (odds ratio [OR] 4.65). Interestingly, there was a significant interaction effect (OR 0.46), indicating that raising the standard was more effective for male than for female students. PSS scores (n = 234 [response rate [RR]: 57%] and n = 244 [RR: 59%] in the 67%-and 100%-credit cohorts, respectively) were also significantly higher in the 100%-credit cohort (F (1,474) = 15.08, P < .001). This applied specifically to female students in the 100%-credit cohort. Levels of HCC (n = 181 [RR: 44%] and n = 162 [RR: 39%] respectively) did not differ between cohorts, but were significantly higher in female students (F (1,332) = 7.93, P < .01). In separate models including cohort and gender, both PSS score (OR 0.91) and HCC (OR 0.38) were significantly associated with Year-1 performance. Only students with both high PSS scores and high HCC values were significantly at risk of lower Year-1 pass rates (OR 0.27), particularly male students. Conclusions:Raising the Year-1 performance standard increased academic performance, most notably in male students. However, it also increased levels of perceived stress, especially in female students. In particular, the combination of high levels of perceived stress and biological stress, as measured by long-term cortisol, was related to poor academic performance. The study suggests a relationship between raising performance standards and student well-being, with differential effects in male and female students. | 539 STEGERS-JAGER ET Al.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender‐specific effects of raising Year‐1 standards on medical students' academic performance and stress levels

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Medical schools worldwide increasingly seek measures to improve their students’ progress 1,2 . A major motive is the large investment involved in a medical student’s training for both the student and society.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic dismissal policy for medical students: effect on study progress and help-seeking behaviour

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Johnson et al. (2009a) and Johnson et al. (2009b) described the PBPS in detail and consistently established the predictive validity and reliability (Cronbach’s α = .77, .75, and .80) of students’ total PBPS risk scores for first- and second-year AASEs across multiple diverse populations and disciplines within health science professions schools at multiple levels.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…During the last half-century plus, educational research has extensively elucidated and documented vast sets of facts and principles (e.g., cited by Johnson et al., 2016) that identify primary academic persistence risk indicators for postsecondary academic success. Ten categories of risk indicators derived from that research are assessed by the Personal Background Preparation Survey (PBPS; Johnson, Johnson, Kim, & Mckee, 2009a; Johnson, Johnson, McKee, & Kim, 2009b). These include noncognitive as well as cognitive risks (Clewell et al., 2005; Habley & McClanahan, 2004; Johnson et al., 2009b).…”

Section: Diagnosis  Prescription  Intervention  Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ten categories of risk indicators derived from that research are assessed by the Personal Background Preparation Survey (PBPS; Johnson, Johnson, Kim, & Mckee, 2009a; Johnson, Johnson, McKee, & Kim, 2009b). These include noncognitive as well as cognitive risks (Clewell et al., 2005; Habley & McClanahan, 2004; Johnson et al., 2009b).…”

Section: Diagnosis  Prescription  Intervention  Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnosis, Prescription, Intervention, Evaluation, Advanced Academic Training, and College Student Success

Johnson¹,

Johnson

Vijayan

et al. 2018

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Pr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Personal Background Preparation Survey (PBPS) identifies students at risk for academic nonadvancement. Uniquely, the PBPS produces individualized reports making evidence-based risk-specific recommendations prescribing interventions targeting students’ empirically identified risk indicators. At a large southwestern health sciences community college, after baseline PBPS administration among 409 diverse first-semester-fall 2010 students, fall 2011 PBPS administration helped target PBPS-individualized interventions among 618 first-semester-fall 2011 students. Group-oriented Advanced Academic Training (AAT) workshops augmented PBPS-targeted individualized interventions among 1,183 additional first-semester students during fall 2012 and fall 2013. AAT participants practiced a daily self-testing retrieval regimen to reduce PBPS-identified cognitive processing, information-, and time-management risk indicators. Controlling PBPS risk level, underrepresented minority status, and gender as covariates, first-semester student nonadvancement rate decreased from baseline’s 42.3% and PBPS-individualized interventions’ 41.4% to 16.2% and 11.6% postAAT ( p < .001), respectively. AAT was designed to reduce primarily higher risk student nonadvancement; yet, retention gains did not differ significantly across risk levels, underrepresented minority students status, and gender.

show abstract

Using the personal background preparation survey to identify health science professions students at risk for adverse academic events

Cited by 13 publications

References 34 publications

Gender‐specific effects of raising Year‐1 standards on medical students' academic performance and stress levels

Gender‐specific effects of raising Year‐1 standards on medical students' academic performance and stress levels

Academic dismissal policy for medical students: effect on study progress and help-seeking behaviour

Diagnosis, Prescription, Intervention, Evaluation, Advanced Academic Training, and College Student Success

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About