通过改进选择算法和改变澳大利亚面试的重点,加强了医学生的选择过程:一项描述性研究

IF 9.3 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Boaz Shulruf, Gary Mayer Velan, Sean Edward Kennedy
{"title":"通过改进选择算法和改变澳大利亚面试的重点,加强了医学生的选择过程:一项描述性研究","authors":"Boaz Shulruf,&nbsp;Gary Mayer Velan,&nbsp;Sean Edward Kennedy","doi":"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.31","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The study investigates the efficacy of new features introduced to the selection process for medical school at the University of New South Wales, Australia: (1) considering the relative ranks rather than scores of the Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test and Australian Tertiary Admission Rank; (2) structured interview focusing on interpersonal interaction and concerns should the applicants become students; and (3) embracing interviewers’ diverse perspectives.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 5 cohorts of students were analyzed, comparing outcomes of the second year in the medicine program of 4 cohorts of the old selection process and 1 of the new process. The main analysis comprised multiple linear regression models for predicting academic, clinical, and professional outcomes, by section tools and demographic variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Selection interview marks from the new interview (512 applicants, 2 interviewers each) were analyzed for inter-rater reliability, which identified a high level of agreement (kappa=0.639). No such analysis was possible for the old interview since it required interviewers to reach a consensus. Multivariate linear regression models utilizing outcomes for 5 cohorts (N=905) revealed that the new selection process was much more effective in predicting academic and clinical achievement in the program (R2=9.4%–17.8% vs. R2=1.5%–8.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest that the medical student selection process can be significantly enhanced by employing a non-compensatory selection algorithm; and using a structured interview focusing on interpersonal interaction and concerns should the applicants become students; as well as embracing interviewers’ diverse perspectives.</p>","PeriodicalId":46098,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","volume":"19 ","pages":"31"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10435329/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical student selection process enhanced by improving selection algorithms and changing the focus of interviews in Australia: a descriptive study\",\"authors\":\"Boaz Shulruf,&nbsp;Gary Mayer Velan,&nbsp;Sean Edward Kennedy\",\"doi\":\"10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.31\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The study investigates the efficacy of new features introduced to the selection process for medical school at the University of New South Wales, Australia: (1) considering the relative ranks rather than scores of the Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test and Australian Tertiary Admission Rank; (2) structured interview focusing on interpersonal interaction and concerns should the applicants become students; and (3) embracing interviewers’ diverse perspectives.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data from 5 cohorts of students were analyzed, comparing outcomes of the second year in the medicine program of 4 cohorts of the old selection process and 1 of the new process. The main analysis comprised multiple linear regression models for predicting academic, clinical, and professional outcomes, by section tools and demographic variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Selection interview marks from the new interview (512 applicants, 2 interviewers each) were analyzed for inter-rater reliability, which identified a high level of agreement (kappa=0.639). No such analysis was possible for the old interview since it required interviewers to reach a consensus. Multivariate linear regression models utilizing outcomes for 5 cohorts (N=905) revealed that the new selection process was much more effective in predicting academic and clinical achievement in the program (R2=9.4%–17.8% vs. R2=1.5%–8.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest that the medical student selection process can be significantly enhanced by employing a non-compensatory selection algorithm; and using a structured interview focusing on interpersonal interaction and concerns should the applicants become students; as well as embracing interviewers’ diverse perspectives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46098,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10435329/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.31\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.31","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究调查了澳大利亚新南威尔士大学医学院招生过程中引入的新特征的效果:(1)考虑相对排名而不是本科医学与健康科学入学考试和澳大利亚高等教育入学排名的分数;(2)结构化面试,注重人际交往和应聘者成为学生后的关注点;(3)接受面试官的不同观点。方法:对5个队列的学生数据进行分析,比较4个队列的旧选拔法和1个队列的新选拔法在医学专业二年级的结果。主要分析包括多元线性回归模型,通过切片工具和人口变量预测学术、临床和专业结果。结果:对新面试(512名申请者,每个面试官2名)的选择面试分数进行了评分间信度分析,发现一致性很高(kappa=0.639)。旧的面试不可能进行这样的分析,因为它需要面试官达成共识。利用5个队列(N=905)结果的多元线性回归模型显示,新的选择过程在预测该计划的学术和临床成就方面更为有效(R2= 9.4%-17.8% vs. R2= 1.5%-8.4%)。结论:采用非补偿性选择算法可以显著提高医学生的选拔过程;采用结构化面试,注重人际交往和应聘者成为学生后的担忧;同时也要接受面试官的不同观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Medical student selection process enhanced by improving selection algorithms and changing the focus of interviews in Australia: a descriptive study

Medical student selection process enhanced by improving selection algorithms and changing the focus of interviews in Australia: a descriptive study

Medical student selection process enhanced by improving selection algorithms and changing the focus of interviews in Australia: a descriptive study

Purpose: The study investigates the efficacy of new features introduced to the selection process for medical school at the University of New South Wales, Australia: (1) considering the relative ranks rather than scores of the Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test and Australian Tertiary Admission Rank; (2) structured interview focusing on interpersonal interaction and concerns should the applicants become students; and (3) embracing interviewers’ diverse perspectives.

Methods: Data from 5 cohorts of students were analyzed, comparing outcomes of the second year in the medicine program of 4 cohorts of the old selection process and 1 of the new process. The main analysis comprised multiple linear regression models for predicting academic, clinical, and professional outcomes, by section tools and demographic variables.

Results: Selection interview marks from the new interview (512 applicants, 2 interviewers each) were analyzed for inter-rater reliability, which identified a high level of agreement (kappa=0.639). No such analysis was possible for the old interview since it required interviewers to reach a consensus. Multivariate linear regression models utilizing outcomes for 5 cohorts (N=905) revealed that the new selection process was much more effective in predicting academic and clinical achievement in the program (R2=9.4%–17.8% vs. R2=1.5%–8.4%).

Conclusion: The results suggest that the medical student selection process can be significantly enhanced by employing a non-compensatory selection algorithm; and using a structured interview focusing on interpersonal interaction and concerns should the applicants become students; as well as embracing interviewers’ diverse perspectives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
32
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions aims to provide readers the state-of-the art practical information on the educational evaluation for health professions so that to increase the quality of undergraduate, graduate, and continuing education. It is specialized in educational evaluation including adoption of measurement theory to medical health education, promotion of high stakes examination such as national licensing examinations, improvement of nationwide or international programs of education, computer-based testing, computerized adaptive testing, and medical health regulatory bodies. Its field comprises a variety of professions that address public medical health as following but not limited to: Care workers Dental hygienists Dental technicians Dentists Dietitians Emergency medical technicians Health educators Medical record technicians Medical technologists Midwives Nurses Nursing aides Occupational therapists Opticians Oriental medical doctors Oriental medicine dispensers Oriental pharmacists Pharmacists Physical therapists Physicians Prosthetists and Orthotists Radiological technologists Rehabilitation counselor Sanitary technicians Speech-language therapists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信