PURPOSE: The authors evaluated the ability of a two-step admission process to predict clinical performance and patients' satisfaction on a third-year objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). METHOD: Subjects were three matriculating classes (1993, 1994, 1995) at one medical school. Data for the classes were analyzed separately. Independent variables were the Academic Profile (AP), an initial ranking of applicants based on grade-point ratio and MCAT scores, and the Selection Profile (SeP), an average of three interview scores. Interviews were offered based on AP rank, and admission was offered based on SeP rank. Dependent variables were total score on the faculty-graded portion of the OSCE and patients' satisfaction scores completed by the OSCE standardized patients. The authors evaluated the correlations between AP and OSCE performance and between SeP and OSCE performance. The authors also compared the OSCE performances of students whose ranks changed after interviews (SeP rank < AP rank or SeP rank > AP rank). The level of significance was adjusted for the number of comparisons (Bonferroni method). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 91% of eligible students (n = 222). No class showed a significant correlation between either AP or SeP rankings and OSCE performance (p > .01). Likewise, there was no difference in OSCE performance for students whose ranks changed after the interview. CONCLUSIONS: The admission ranking and interview process at this medical school did not predict clinical performance or patients' satisfaction on this OSCE.
PURPOSE: The authors evaluated the ability of a two-step admission process to predict clinical performance and patients' satisfaction on a third-year objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). METHOD: Subjects were three matriculating classes (1993, 1994, 1995) at one medical school. Data for the classes were analyzed separately. Independent variables were the Academic Profile (AP), an initial ranking of applicants based on grade-point ratio and MCAT scores, and the Selection Profile (SeP), an average of three interview scores. Interviews were offered based on AP rank, and admission was offered based on SeP rank. Dependent variables were total score on the faculty-graded portion of the OSCE and patients' satisfaction scores completed by the OSCE standardized patients. The authors evaluated the correlations between AP and OSCE performance and between SeP and OSCE performance. The authors also compared the OSCE performances of students whose ranks changed after interviews (SeP rank < AP rank or SeP rank > AP rank). The level of significance was adjusted for the number of comparisons (Bonferroni method). RESULTS: Complete data were available for 91% of eligible students (n = 222). No class showed a significant correlation between either AP or SeP rankings and OSCE performance (p > .01). Likewise, there was no difference in OSCE performance for students whose ranks changed after the interview. CONCLUSIONS: The admission ranking and interview process at this medical school did not predict clinical performance or patients' satisfaction on this OSCE.
Authors: Jacqueline E McLaughlin; Julia Khanova; Kelly Scolaro; Philip T Rodgers; Wendy C Cox Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Donald A Barr; John Matsui; Stanley F Wanat; Maria Elena Gonzalez Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 3.853