Project description:BackgroundMeasures used for medical student selection should predict future performance during training. A problem for any selection study is that predictor-outcome correlations are known only in those who have been selected, whereas selectors need to know how measures would predict in the entire pool of applicants. That problem of interpretation can be solved by calculating construct-level predictive validity, an estimate of true predictor-outcome correlation across the range of applicant abilities.MethodsConstruct-level predictive validities were calculated in six cohort studies of medical student selection and training (student entry, 1972 to 2009) for a range of predictors, including A-levels, General Certificates of Secondary Education (GCSEs)/O-levels, and aptitude tests (AH5 and UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT)). Outcomes included undergraduate basic medical science and finals assessments, as well as postgraduate measures of Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom (MRCP(UK)) performance and entry in the Specialist Register. Construct-level predictive validity was calculated with the method of Hunter, Schmidt and Le (2006), adapted to correct for right-censorship of examination results due to grade inflation.ResultsMeta-regression analyzed 57 separate predictor-outcome correlations (POCs) and construct-level predictive validities (CLPVs). Mean CLPVs are substantially higher (.450) than mean POCs (.171). Mean CLPVs for first-year examinations, were high for A-levels (.809; CI: .501 to .935), and lower for GCSEs/O-levels (.332; CI: .024 to .583) and UKCAT (mean = .245; CI: .207 to .276). A-levels had higher CLPVs for all undergraduate and postgraduate assessments than did GCSEs/O-levels and intellectual aptitude tests. CLPVs of educational attainment measures decline somewhat during training, but continue to predict postgraduate performance. Intellectual aptitude tests have lower CLPVs than A-levels or GCSEs/O-levels.ConclusionsEducational attainment has strong CLPVs for undergraduate and postgraduate performance, accounting for perhaps 65% of true variance in first year performance. Such CLPVs justify the use of educational attainment measure in selection, but also raise a key theoretical question concerning the remaining 35% of variance (and measurement error, range restriction and right-censorship have been taken into account). Just as in astrophysics, 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' are posited to balance various theoretical equations, so medical student selection must also have its 'dark variance', whose nature is not yet properly characterized, but explains a third of the variation in performance during training. Some variance probably relates to factors which are unpredictable at selection, such as illness or other life events, but some is probably also associated with factors such as personality, motivation or study skills.

Project description:BackgroundWhether graduate entrants to medical school perform better academically than undergraduate entrants remains controversial. Differences in the discipline backgrounds of graduates may, at least in part, have accounted for differences in the results of comparative studies reported to date. This study aimed to address the dual issues of whether academic performance and progression rates were different between GE and UG students and the extent to which the discipline background of GE students may underpin any differences observed.MethodsRelative academic performance as well as indicators of student progression (supplementary examinations, repeat years, leave of absence, withdrawal from the programme) were compared between graduate entrants (GE) (N = 410) and both school leaver entrants (SLE) (N = 865) and non-standard entrants (some prior tertiary education) (NSE) (N = 148) who combined for the final 4 yr. of a 6 yr. MBBS undergraduate programme in 8 consecutive cohorts from 2006 to 2013 in Western Australia.ResultsExamination scores were generally at or very close to a distinction grade or higher across all groups. Higher mean examination scores were seen for GE versus both SLE and NSE in the first 2 years with no significant differences in the final 2 years. GE from biological science / science backgrounds (N = 241) or physical science backgrounds (N = 26) performed the same as SLE and NSE throughout the programme. GE with a health / allied health background (N = 91), however, performed better throughout. They also performed better when compared to their GE counterparts from a humanities (N = 32) or a biological science / science background. GE had increased odds of withdrawing when compared to SLE (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.30, 4.79, P = 0.006), but not compared to NSE. NSE had increased odds of repeating at least one level when compared to either GE (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.21, 6.21, P = 0.016) or SLE (OR 4.10, 95% CI 1.93, 8.70, P < 0.001). There were no differences by entry category in the odds of sitting at least one supplementary examination during the programme. There was an increase in the odds of taking at least one leave of absence in both SLE (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.79, 3.63, P < 0.001) and NSE (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.50, 4.07, P < 0.001) compared to GE.ConclusionsBetter academic performance by GE compared to SLE and NSE was predominantly due to higher scores for GE with a health / allied health background. GE were also less likely to have impeded progress during the course.

Project description:BackgroundIn Switzerland, the scholastic aptitude test for medical-school selection takes place in three languages. This study examined the effects of two quasi-experimental interventions that aimed to reduce existing differences in test results between the French- and German-speaking language candidates.MethodsBetween 2018 and 2023, the population of applicants to Swiss medical schools consisted of N = 18'824 German- and French-speaking individuals. Based on a quasi-experimental design, we examined the effects of two interventions regarding preparatory material, in these cohorts. The first intervention (2022) consisting of practice trials in baccalaureate schools in the canton of Fribourg enabled French-speaking candidates primarily from the canton of Fribourg to prepare more intensively with official tasks. Practice trials enable future candidates to complete a published test version under original conditions and thus prepare how to approach the real test. The second intervention (2023) released new preparatory material in all languages for one group of tasks for which differences between the language groups were more pronounced than in the other tasks. The test provider offered this material for free download together with existing preparation materials and thereby enabled more intensive preparation.ResultsAfter the first intervention, the initially small to medium-sized mean differences in z-transformed test scores between French-speaking candidates from Fribourg and German-speaking candidates were nearly eliminated (from 0.39 to 0.05). Also for French-speaking candidates from outside of the canton of Fribourg, the mean differences were smaller than before the intervention (0.48 before, 0.39 after first intervention). After the second intervention, particularly the mean differences in test scores between German-speaking and French-speaking candidates from outside of Fribourg were further reduced (to 0.24).ConclusionsThe two interventions regarding material for preparing to participate in the aptitude test affected candidates' test scores. They reduced the gap between German- and French-speaking candidates showing that the additional benefits of commercial offers for test preparation are limited. Hence, offering comparable official preparation material to all language groups enhances test fairness.

Project description:BackgroundSelection of medical students in the UK is still largely based on prior academic achievement, although doubts have been expressed as to whether performance in earlier life is predictive of outcomes later in medical school or post-graduate education. This study analyses data from five longitudinal studies of UK medical students and doctors from the early 1970s until the early 2000s. Two of the studies used the AH5, a group test of general intelligence (that is, intellectual aptitude). Sex and ethnic differences were also analyzed in light of the changing demographics of medical students over the past decades.MethodsData from five cohort studies were available: the Westminster Study (began clinical studies from 1975 to 1982), the 1980, 1985, and 1990 cohort studies (entered medical school in 1981, 1986, and 1991), and the University College London Medical School (UCLMS) Cohort Study (entered clinical studies in 2005 and 2006). Different studies had different outcome measures, but most had performance on basic medical sciences and clinical examinations at medical school, performance in Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians (MRCP(UK)) examinations, and being on the General Medical Council Specialist Register.ResultsCorrelation matrices and path analyses are presented. There were robust correlations across different years at medical school, and medical school performance also predicted MRCP(UK) performance and being on the GMC Specialist Register. A-levels correlated somewhat less with undergraduate and post-graduate performance, but there was restriction of range in entrants. General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)/O-level results also predicted undergraduate and post-graduate outcomes, but less so than did A-level results, but there may be incremental validity for clinical and post-graduate performance. The AH5 had some significant correlations with outcome, but they were inconsistent. Sex and ethnicity also had predictive effects on measures of educational attainment, undergraduate, and post-graduate performance. Women performed better in assessments but were less likely to be on the Specialist Register. Non-white participants generally underperformed in undergraduate and post-graduate assessments, but were equally likely to be on the Specialist Register. There was a suggestion of smaller ethnicity effects in earlier studies.ConclusionsThe existence of the Academic Backbone concept is strongly supported, with attainment at secondary school predicting performance in undergraduate and post-graduate medical assessments, and the effects spanning many years. The Academic Backbone is conceptualized in terms of the development of more sophisticated underlying structures of knowledge ('cognitive capital' and 'medical capital'). The Academic Backbone provides strong support for using measures of educational attainment, particularly A-levels, in student selection.

Project description:The 2-hour long United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) is used by many universities in the United Kingdom as part of their selection process for undergraduate medical and dentistry degrees. We aimed to compare the performance of senior doctors in primary and secondary care and across a range of specialties, in a modified version of the medical school entrance examination-the mUKCAT. Lay people were also included in the study. Despite its widespread use, this is the first study that examines the performance of senior clinicians in the UKCAT.The study used a prospective cross-sectional design. It used mock questions from the UKCAT website to generate an mUKCAT that was anticipated to take 15 minutes to complete. In all, 167 doctors at consultant, general practitioner (GP), or specialty trainee grade and 26 lay people took part.The overall mean mUKCAT score of all participants was 2486 (69.1%). Of the total cohort, 126 (65.3%) scored above our designated threshold of 2368 and were deemed to have passed the mUKCAT. Excluding lay people, 113 (67.7%) of the 167 doctors scored above that threshold. Medical specialty was associated with overall score (P = 0.003), with anesthetists/intensive care physicians scoring highest (n = 20, mean score 2660) and GPs scoring lowest (n = 38, mean score 2302). Academics outperformed nonacademics (mean score of academics, n = 44 vs nonacademics, n = 123: 2750 vs 2406; P < 0.001). Those clinicians in senior management positions scored lower than those in "standard" roles (mean score of senior management, n = 31 vs standard roles, n = 136: 2332 vs 2534, mean difference 202, 95% confidence interval 67-337, P = 0.004).In the situational judgement section, there was no evidence that specialty was associated with score (P = 0.15). Academics exhibited greater situational judgement than their nonacademic colleagues (academics vs nonacademics: 69.8 vs 63.6%; P = 0.01).The majority of senior clinicians passed our mUKCAT. Academics and anesthetists were found to be the best performers, with GPs and those in senior management positions performing the worst.

Project description:To determine the prevalence of depression among male and female medical students, its change over time and whether depression persists for affected students. Longitudinal study comprising annual questionnaire surveys which included the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D). Between 2007 and 2010 all 1112 students entering the Core Science component (Year 1) and all 542 students entering the Clinical component (Year 4) of the Cambridge (UK) medical course were followed-up annually. We analysed, separately for men and women, mean HADS-D scores, the proportions whose scores indicated depression at different time-points and for students maintaining participation, the number of occasions on which their HADS-D scores indicated depression. 725 Core Science and 364 Clinical students participated. Mean HADS-D scores ranged between 3.34 and 3.49 among all Core Science students and between 2.16 and 2.91 among all Clinical students. There was no difference between men and women in median HADS-D scores. Prevalence of depression ranged between 5.7% and 10.6% among all Core Science students and between 2.7% and 8.2% among all Clinical students. Over time Core Science students displayed no increase in mean HADS-D score. Among Clinical students only men displayed a small increase (time coefficient 0.33 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.55)). Prevalence did not increase over time. 220 Core Science and 150 Clinical students participated throughout the study. Of these, 18.2% and 10.6%, respectively, recorded HADS-D scores indicating depression on at least one occasion. Of 56 students recording depression at some point, 37 did so only once. Prevalence of depression among participants was similar to that reported for comparable groups. Among men approaching the end of clinical studies depression scores increased. In all years a minority of students displayed depression; for some this persisted. Mechanisms are needed to identify and support students suffering from depression, particularly when persistent.

Dataset Information

Intellectual aptitude tests and A levels for selecting UK school leaver entrants for medical school.

Publications

Intellectual aptitude tests and A levels for selecting UK school leaver entrants for medical school.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets