Medical teacher · 2018
How good are we at selecting students that meet our mission? Outcomes of the 2011 and 2012 entering classes selected by a locally developed multiple mini interview.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Terregino Carol A, Copeland H Liesel, Laumbach Sonia Garcia, Mehan Daniel, Dunleavy Dana, Geiger Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Can a locally developed multiple mini interview (MMI) process lead to outcomes reflective of local values and mission?
METHODS: In 2017, the authors performed a retrospective analysis of the relationship of MMI with multiple-choice-based outcomes and non-multiple-choice-based outcomes, including clerkship competencies, OSCE, scholarship/service/leadership, academic honor society induction, peer and faculty humanism nominations, and overall performance at graduation for two entering classes with acceptance decisions based exclusively on a locally developed MMI.
RESULTS: There was no association between MMI and performance on multiple-choice-based examinations. For other outcomes, the effect size of MMI for OSCE was small and leadership/service and scholarship did not correlate with MMI score. For clerkship competencies, there was medium effect size for patient care, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, and cultural competence. Highest and lowest quartile MMI scorers were no different in academic honor society induction; however, top quartile MMI scorers received more humanism votes versus last quartile and were more likely rated outstanding or excellent graduates.
CONCLUSIONS: Local development of MMI and of admissions processes with sole reliance on MMI for final acceptance decisions will not affect academic preparation/medical school performance in multiple-choice-based assessments but can lead to locally desired attributes in students.
METHODS: In 2017, the authors performed a retrospective analysis of the relationship of MMI with multiple-choice-based outcomes and non-multiple-choice-based outcomes, including clerkship competencies, OSCE, scholarship/service/leadership, academic honor society induction, peer and faculty humanism nominations, and overall performance at graduation for two entering classes with acceptance decisions based exclusively on a locally developed MMI.
RESULTS: There was no association between MMI and performance on multiple-choice-based examinations. For other outcomes, the effect size of MMI for OSCE was small and leadership/service and scholarship did not correlate with MMI score. For clerkship competencies, there was medium effect size for patient care, practice-based learning and improvement, interpersonal and communication skills, and cultural competence. Highest and lowest quartile MMI scorers were no different in academic honor society induction; however, top quartile MMI scorers received more humanism votes versus last quartile and were more likely rated outstanding or excellent graduates.
CONCLUSIONS: Local development of MMI and of admissions processes with sole reliance on MMI for final acceptance decisions will not affect academic preparation/medical school performance in multiple-choice-based assessments but can lead to locally desired attributes in students.