The impact of preparatory activities on medical school selection outcomes: a cross-sectional survey of applicants to the university of Adelaide medical school in 2007

BMC Medical Education

Karen E Sumner⁴  Deborah A Turnbull¹  Michelle Lorimer³  Ian T Zajac²  Caroline O Laurence³ 

[1]School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia

[2]Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Preventative Health Flagship, Kintore Avenue, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia

[3]Discipline of General Practice, School of Population Health, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia

[4]Rural Doctors Workforce Agency, 63 Henley Beach Road, Mile End, South Australia 5031, Australia

关键词: Preparation;    Equity;    Admissions;    Medical school selection;   

Others  :  1135771
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-159

 received in 2013-02-19, accepted in 2013-11-21,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Selection into medical school is highly competitive with more applicants than places. Little is known about the preparation that applicants undertake for this high stakes process. The study aims to determine what preparatory activities applicants undertake and what difficulties they encounter for each stage of the application process to medical school and in particular what impact these have on the outcome.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of 1097 applicants who applied for a place in the University of Adelaide Medical School in 2007 and participated in the UMAT (Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test) and oral assessment components of the selection process. The main outcome measures were an offer of an interview and offer of a place in the medical school and were analysed using logistic regression.

Results

The odds of a successful outcome increased with each additional preparatory activity undertaken for the UMAT (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.33; P < 0.001) and the oral assessment (1.36, 1.19 to 1.55; P < 0.001) stage of selection. The UMAT preparatory activities associated with the offer of an interview were attendance of a training course by a private organisation (1.75, 1.35 to 2.27: P < 0.001), use of online services of a private organisation (1.58, 1.23 to 2.04; P < 0.001), and familiarising oneself with the process (1.52, 1.15 to 2.00; p = 0.021). The oral assessment activities associated with an offer of a place included refining and learning a personal resume (9.73, 2.97 to 31.88; P < 0.001) and learning about the course structure (2.05, 1.29 to 3.26; P = 0.022).

For the UMAT, applicants who found difficulties with learning for this type of test (0.47, 0.35 to 0.63: P < 0.001), with the timing of UMAT in terms of school exams (0.48, 0.5 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and with the inability to convey personal skills with the UMAT (0.67, 0.52 to 0.86; P = 0.026) were significantly less likely to be offered an interview.

Conclusions

Medical schools make an enormous effort to undertake a selection process that is fair and equitable and which selects students most appropriate for medical school and the course they provide. Our results indicate that performance in the selection processes can be improved by training. However, if these preparatory activities may be limited to those who can access them, the playing field is not even and increasing equity of access to medical schools will not be achieved.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Laurence et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Roach J, Dorling D: Recruiting the wrong students: medical schools are still failing to recruit a broad spectrum of students. StudentBMJ 2000, 8:178-180.
• [2]Story M, Mercer A: Selection of medical students: an Australian perspective. Intern Med J 2005, 35:647-649.
• [3]Turnbull D, Buckley P, Robinson JS, Mather G, Leahy C, Marley J: Increasing the evidence base for selection for undergraduate medicine: four case studies investigating process and interim outcomes. Med Educ 2003, 37:115-120.
• [4]Wilson I, Roberts C, Flynn E, Griffin B: Only the best: medical student selection in Australia. Med J Aust 2012, 196:357.
• [5]Poole P, Moriarty H, Wearn A, Wilkinson T, Weller J: Medical student selection in New Zealand: looking to the future. NZ Med J 2009, 122:88-100.
• [6]Association of American Medical Colleges: MSAR: Getting started. Medical School admission requirements. Washington DC: AAMC; 2012. [Cited 2012 28 June]; Available from: https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/requirements/msar/ webcite
• [7]Parry J, Mathers J, Stevens A, Parsons A, Lilford R, Spurgeon P, Thomas H: Admissions processes for five year medical courses in English schools: review. BMJ 2006, 332:1005-1009.
• [8]Prideaux D, Roberts C, Eva K, Centeno A, McCorie P, McManus C, Patterson F, Powis D, Tekian A, Wilkinson D: Assessment for selection for the health care professions and speciality training: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach 2011, 33:215-223.
• [9]Donnon T, Paolucci E, Violator C: The predictive validity of the MCAT for the medical school performance and medical board licensing examinations: a meta-analysis of the published research. Acad Med 2007, 82:100-106.
• [10]Julian E: Validity of the medical college admission test for predicting medical school performance. Acad Med 2005, 80:910-917.
• [11]James D, Yates J, Nicholson S: Comparison of A level and UKCAT performance in students applying to UK medical and dental schools in 2006: cohort study. BMJ 2010, 340:340. c478. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c478
• [12]Lynch B, MacKenzie R, Dowell J, Cleland J, Prescott G: Does the UKCAT predict Year 1 performance in medical school? Med Educ 2009, 43:1203-1209.
• [13]Turner R, Nicholson S: Can the UK clinical aptitude test (UKCAT) select suitable candidates for interview? Med Educ 2011, 45:1041-1047.
• [14]Wilkinson D, Zhang J, Parker M: Predictive validity of the undergraduate medicine and health sciences admission test for medical students' academic performance. Med J Aust 2011, 194:341-344.
• [15]Poole P, Shulruf B, Rudland J, Wilkinson T: Comparision of UMAT scores and GPA in prediction of performance in medical school: a national study. Med Educ 2012, 46:163-171.
• [16]Wilkinson D, Zhang J, Byrne G, Luke H, Ozolins I, Parker M, Peterson R: Medical school selection criteria and the prediction of academic performance: evidence leading to change in policy and practice at the university of Queensland. Med J Aust 2008, 188:349-354.
• [17]British Medical Association: The demography of medical schools: a discussion paper. London: British Medical Association; 2004.
• [18]Emery J, Bell J, Vidal Rodeiro C: The BioMedical Admissions test for medical student selection: issues of fairness and bias. Med Teach 2011, 33:62-71.
• [19]Laurence C, Turnbull D, Briggs N, Robinson J: Applicant characteristics and their influence on success: results from an analysis of applicants to the university of Adelaide medical school, 2004-2007. Med J Aust 2010, 192:212-216.
• [20]McManus I: Factors affecting likelihood of applicants being offered a place in medical schools in the United Kingdom in 1996 and 1997: retrospective study. BMJ 1998, 317:1111-1117.
• [21]Griffin B, Harding D, Wilson I, Yeomans N: Does practice make perfect? The effect of coaching and retesting on selection tests used for admission to an Australian medical school. Med J Aust 2008, 189:270-273.
• [22]McGaghie W, Downing S, Kubilius R: What is the impact of commercial test preparation courses on medical examination performance? Medicine: an international journal 2010, 16:202-2011.
• [23]Dhar D, Perry W, Poole P: Students' perceptions of the undergraduate medicine and health sciences admissionstest (UMAT). NZ Med J 2012, 125:29-36.
• [24]Wilkinson T, Wilkinson T: Preparation courses for a medical admissions test: effectiveness contrasts with opinons. Med Educ 2013, 47:417-424.
• [25]Dillman D: Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley; 2000.
• [26]Thadani R, Swanson D, Galbraith R: A preliminary analysis of different approaches to preparing for the USMLE Step 1. Acad Med 2000, 75:S40-S42.
• [27]Zhang C, Rauchwarger A, Toth C, O'Connell M: Student USMLE step 1 preparation and performance. Adv in Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2004, 9:291-297.
• [28]Razack S, Faremo S, Drolet F, Snell L, Wiseman J, Pickering J: Multiple mini-interviews versus traditional intervies: stakeholder acceptability comparison. Med Educ 2009, 43:993-100.
• [29]Kumar K, Roberts C, Rothnie I, du Fresne C, Walton M: Experiences of the multiple mini-interview: a qualitative analysis. Med Educ 2009, 43:360-367.
• [30]Cleland J, French F, Johnston P: A mixed-methods study identifying and exploring medical students's views of the UKCAT. Med Teach 2011, 33:244-249.
• [31]Arvey R, Strickland W, Drauden G, Martin C: Motivational components of test taking. Pers Psychol 1990, 43:695-716.
• [32]Messick S, Jungeblut A: Time and method in coaching for the SAT. Psychol Bull 1981, 89:191-216.
• [33]Hausknecht J, Halpert J, Di Paolo N, Gerrard M: Retesting in selection: a meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. J Appl Psychol 2007, 92:373-385.
• [34]Mathers J, Sitch A, Marsh J, Parry J: Widening access to medical education for under-represented socioeconomic groups: population based cross sectional analysis of UK data, 2002-2006. BMJ 2011, 341:341. d918. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d918
• [35]Tiffin P, Dowell J, McLachlan J: Widening access to UK medical education for under-represented socioeconomic groups: modelling the impact of the UKCAT in the 2009 cohort. BMJ 2012, 344:e1805.