Clara A Callahan1, Mohammadreza Hojat, Joseph S Gonnella. 1. Office of Admissions, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, USA. Clara.Callahan@Jefferson.edu
Abstract
CONTEXT: The issue of whether medical education research outcomes can be biased by students' refusal to allow their data to be used in outcomes research should be empirically addressed to assure the validity of research findings. Given that institutions are expected to document the outcomes of their educational programmes, evaluations of clinical performance subsequent to medical school are crucial, but are often incomplete when graduates decline to permit data collection. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the demographic and performance differences between research volunteers and others. METHODS: A total of 7415 doctors graduated from Jefferson Medical College between 1970 and 2004; 75% (n = 5575) agreed to participate in medical education research by granting written permission for the collection of data from their postgraduate training directors on their behalf (research volunteers); 20% (n = 1489) refused to grant such permission (non-volunteers), and 5% (n = 351) did not return the permission form (non-respondents). This prospective longitudinal study compared research volunteers, non-volunteers and non-respondents on gender, ethnicity, performance measures prior to, during and after medical school, scores on medical licensing examinations, and board certification status. RESULTS: Doctors who granted permission (volunteers) generally performed better during and after medical school. In addition, they scored higher on medical licensing examinations and had a higher certification rate. Women and members of ethnic minority groups were less likely to grant permission. CONCLUSIONS: The study raises questions about the validity of research findings as a result of volunteerism in medical education research. The implications for guidelines regarding the protection of human subjects in medical education research, and for educational outcomes, are discussed.
CONTEXT: The issue of whether medical education research outcomes can be biased by students' refusal to allow their data to be used in outcomes research should be empirically addressed to assure the validity of research findings. Given that institutions are expected to document the outcomes of their educational programmes, evaluations of clinical performance subsequent to medical school are crucial, but are often incomplete when graduates decline to permit data collection. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the demographic and performance differences between research volunteers and others. METHODS: A total of 7415 doctors graduated from Jefferson Medical College between 1970 and 2004; 75% (n = 5575) agreed to participate in medical education research by granting written permission for the collection of data from their postgraduate training directors on their behalf (research volunteers); 20% (n = 1489) refused to grant such permission (non-volunteers), and 5% (n = 351) did not return the permission form (non-respondents). This prospective longitudinal study compared research volunteers, non-volunteers and non-respondents on gender, ethnicity, performance measures prior to, during and after medical school, scores on medical licensing examinations, and board certification status. RESULTS: Doctors who granted permission (volunteers) generally performed better during and after medical school. In addition, they scored higher on medical licensing examinations and had a higher certification rate. Women and members of ethnic minority groups were less likely to grant permission. CONCLUSIONS: The study raises questions about the validity of research findings as a result of volunteerism in medical education research. The implications for guidelines regarding the protection of human subjects in medical education research, and for educational outcomes, are discussed.
Authors: O Tokede; M Walji; R Ramoni; J M White; M Schoonheim-Klein; N S Kimmes; R Vaderhobli; P C Stark; V L Patel; E Kalenderian Journal: Eur J Dent Educ Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 2.355
Authors: Francois J Cilliers; Lambert W Schuwirth; Hanelie J Adendorff; Nicoline Herman; Cees P van der Vleuten Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2010-05-09 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Andrzej A Kononowicz; Paweł Krawczyk; Grzegorz Cebula; Marta Dembkowska; Edyta Drab; Bartosz Frączek; Aleksandra J Stachoń; Janusz Andres Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Ingrid H de Beer; Huub C Gelderblom; Onno Schellekens; Esegiel Gaeb; Gert van Rooy; Alta McNally; Ferdinand W Wit; Rinke de Wit F Tobias Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Umut Sarpel; Mary Ann Hopkins; Frederick More; Steven Yavner; Martin Pusic; Michael W Nick; Hyuksoon Song; Rachel Ellaway; Adina L Kalet Journal: Med Educ Online Date: 2013-02-25