Literature DB >> 2407259

The interview in the admission process.

J C Edwards1, E K Johnson, J B Molidor.   

Abstract

Significant demographic, legal, and educational developments during the last ten years have led medical schools to review critically their selection procedures. A critical component of this review is the selection interview, since it is an integral part of most admission processes; however, some question its value. Interviews serve four purposes: information gathering, decision making, verification of application data, and recruitment. The first and last of these merit special attention. The interview enables an admission committee to gather information about a candidate that would be difficult or impossible to obtain by any other means yet is readily evaluated in an interview. Given the recent decline in numbers of applicants to and interest in medical school, many schools are paying closer attention to the interview as a powerful recruiting tool. Interviews can be unstructured, semistructured, or structured. Structuring involves analyzing what makes a medical student successful, standardizing the questions for all applicants, providing sample answers for evaluating responses, and using panel interviews (several interviewers simultaneously with one applicant). Reliability and validity of results increase with the degree of structuring. Studies of interviewers show that they are often biased in terms of the rating tendencies (for instance, leniency or severity) and in terms of an applicant's sex, race, appearance, similarity to the interviewer, and contrast to other applicants). Training interviewers may reduce such bias. Admission committees should weigh the purposes of interviewing differently for various types of candidates, develop structured or semistructured interviews focusing on nonacademic criteria, and train the interviewers.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2407259     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199003000-00008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  21 in total

1.  The effect of blinded versus nonblinded interviews in the resident selection process.

Authors:  Lois E Brustman; Fern L Williams; Katherine Carroll; Heather Lurie; Eric Ganz; Oded Langer
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2010-09

2.  What Can We Learn From Resident Selection Interviews?

Authors:  John C Burkhardt
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2015-12

3.  The structured interview and interviewer training in the admissions process.

Authors:  Pamela U Joyner; Wendy C Cox; Carla White-Harris; Susan J Blalock
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 2.047

4.  Admission to medical school: International perspectives.

Authors:  J C Edwards; E K Johnson; J B Molidor
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.853

5.  Choosing tomorrow's doctors. Interviews should be structured or semistructured.

Authors:  M Boohan; R W Stout
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-02

6.  Development and Assessment of the Multiple Mini-Interview in a School of Pharmacy Admissions Model.

Authors:  Wendy C Cox; Jacqueline E McLaughlin; David Singer; Margaret Lewis; Melissa M Dinkins
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2015-05-25       Impact factor: 2.047

7.  Competing duties: medical educators, underperforming students, and social accountability.

Authors:  Thalia Arawi; Philip M Rosoff
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 1.352

8.  Current medical student interviewers add data to the evaluation of medical school applicants.

Authors:  Christina J Gutowski; Nikhil G Thaker; George Heinrich; Barbara Fadem
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2010-06-09

9.  Dutch postgraduate GP selection procedure; reliability of interview assessments.

Authors:  Margit I Vermeulen; Marijke M Kuyvenhoven; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Yolanda van der Graaf; Roger A M J Damoiseaux
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 2.497

10.  Comparison of communication skills between medical students admitted after interviews or on academic merits.

Authors:  Marie Dahlin; Stina Söderberg; Ulla Holm; Ingrid Nilsson; Lars-Ove Farnebo
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.