Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Outcomes-Based Selection Into Medical School: Predicting Excellence in Multiple Competencies During the Clinical Years

      research-article
      , PhD 1 , , , PhD 2 , , PhD 3 , , PhD, MHPE 4
      Academic Medicine
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Medical school selection committees aim to identify the best possible students and, ultimately, the best future doctors from a large, well-qualified, generally homogeneous pool of applicants. Constructive alignment of medical school selection, curricula, and assessment with the ultimate outcomes (e.g., CanMEDS roles) has been proposed as means to attain this goal. Whether this approach is effective has not yet been established. The authors addressed this gap by assessing the relationship between performance in an outcomes-based selection procedure and performance during the clinical years of medical school.

          Method

          Two groups of students were compared: (1) those admitted into Maastricht University Medical School via an outcomes-based selection procedure and (2) those rejected through this procedure who were admitted into the program through a national, grade-point-average-based lottery. The authors compared performance scores of students from the 2 groups on all 7 CanMEDS roles, using assessment data gathered during clinical rotations. The authors examined data from 3 cohorts (2011–2013).

          Results

          Students admitted through the local, outcomes-based selection procedure significantly outperformed the initially rejected but lottery-admitted students in all years, and the differences between groups increased over time. The selected students performed significantly better in the CanMEDS roles of Communicator, Collaborator, and Professional in the first year of clinical rotations; in these 3 roles—plus Organizer—in the second year; and in 2 additional roles (Advocate and Scholar—all except Medical Expert) at the end of their clinical training.

          Conclusions

          A constructively aligned selection procedure has increasing predictive value across the clinical years of medical school compared with a GPA-based lottery procedure. The data reported here suggest that constructive alignment of selection, curricula, and assessment to ultimate outcomes is effective in creating a selection procedure predictive of clinical performance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How effective are selection methods in medical education? A systematic review.

          Selection methods used by medical schools should reliably identify whether candidates are likely to be successful in medical training and ultimately become competent clinicians. However, there is little consensus regarding methods that reliably evaluate non-academic attributes, and longitudinal studies examining predictors of success after qualification are insufficient. This systematic review synthesises the extant research evidence on the relative strengths of various selection methods. We offer a research agenda and identify key considerations to inform policy and practice in the next 50 years.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Assessment for selection for the health care professions and specialty training: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference.

            Assessment for selection in medicine and the health professions should follow the same quality assurance processes as in-course assessment. The literature on selection is limited and is not strongly theoretical or conceptual. For written testing, there is evidence of the predictive validity of Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) for medical school and licensing examination performance. There is also evidence for the predictive validity of grade point average, particularly in combination with MCAT for graduate entry but little evidence about the predictive validity of school leaver scores. Interviews have not been shown to be robust selection measures. Studies of multiple mini-interviews have indicated good predictive validity and reliability. Of other measures used in selection, only the growing interest in personality testing appears to warrant future work. Widening access to medical and health professional programmes is an increasing priority and relates to the social accountability mandate of medical and health professional schools. While traditional selection measures do discriminate against various population groups, there is little evidence on the effect of non-traditional measures in widening access. Preparation and outreach programmes show most promise. In summary, the areas of consensus for assessment for selection are small in number. Recommendations for future action focus on the adoption of principles of good assessment and curriculum alignment, use of multi-method programmatic approaches, development of interdisciplinary frameworks and utilisation of sophisticated measurement models. The social accountability mandate of medical and health professional schools demands that social inclusion, workforce issues and widening of access are embedded in the principles of good assessment for selection.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Entrustability Scales: Outlining Their Usefulness for Competency-Based Clinical Assessment.

              Meaningful residency education occurs at the bedside, along with opportunities for situated in-training assessment. A necessary component of workplace-based assessment (WBA) is the clinical supervisor, whose subjective judgments of residents' performance can yield rich and nuanced ratings but may also occasionally reflect bias. How to improve the validity of WBA instruments while simultaneously capturing meaningful subjective judgment is currently not clear. This Perspective outlines how "entrustability scales" may help bridge the gap between the assessment judgments of clinical supervisors and WBA instruments. Entrustment-based assessment evaluates trainees against what they will actually do when independent; thus, "entrustability scales"-defined as behaviorally anchored ordinal scales based on progression to competence-reflect a judgment that has clinical meaning for assessors. Rather than asking raters to assess trainees against abstract scales, entrustability scales provide raters with an assessment measure structured around the way evaluators already make day-to-day clinical entrustment decisions, which results in increased reliability. Entrustability scales help raters make assessments based on narrative descriptors that reflect real-world judgments, drawing attention to a trainee's readiness for independent practice rather than his/her deficiencies. These scales fit into milestone measurement both by allowing an individual resident to strive for independence in entrustable professional activities across the entire training period and by allowing residency directors to identify residents experiencing difficulty. Some WBA tools that have begun to use variations of entrustability scales show potential for allowing raters to produce valid judgments. This type of anchor scale should be brought into wider circulation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Acad Med
                Acad Med
                ACM
                Academic Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                1040-2446
                1938-808X
                03 March 2020
                September 2020
                : 95
                : 9
                : 1411-1420
                Affiliations
                [1 ] S. Schreurs is teacher/educational advisor, Department of Educational Development and Research, School of Health Professions Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0233-9775.
                [2 ] K.B.J.M. Cleutjens is associate professor, Department of Pathology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7870-1670.
                [3 ] J. Cleland is full professor and John Simpson Chair of Medical Education Research, Centre for Healthcare Education Research and Innovation (CHERI), University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1433-9323.
                [4 ] M.G.A. oude Egbrink is full professor, Implementation of Educational Innovations, Department of Physiology, School of Health Professions Education, and scientific director, Institute for Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5530-6598.
                Author notes
                Correspondence should be addressed to Sanne Schreurs, Department of Educational Development and Research, School of Health Professions Education, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands; telephone: (+31) 43-38-85-629; email: s.schreurs@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl ; Twitter: @MaastrichtU.
                Article
                00048
                10.1097/ACM.0000000000003279
                7447174
                32134790
                52ba75dd-bf20-4b56-89c8-d24c9356ce3f
                Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Categories
                Research Reports
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article