Selecting top candidates for medical school selection interviews- a non-compensatory approach
Open Access
- 15 April 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in BMC Medical Education
- Vol. 20 (1), 1-8
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02031-6
Abstract
Medical schools apply a range of selection methods to ensure that admitted students succeed in the program. In Australia, selection tools typically include measures of academic achievement (e.g. the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank – ATAR) and aptitude tests (e.g. the Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admissions Test – UMAT). These are most commonly used to determine which applicants are invited for additional selection processes, such as interviews. However, no previous study has examined the efficacy of the first part of the selection process. In particular, are compensatory or non-compensatory approaches more effective in evaluating the outcomes of cognitive and aptitude tests, and do they affect the demographics of students selected for interview? This study utilised data from consecutive cohorts of mainstream domestic students who applied to enter the UNSW Medicine program between 2013 to 2018. A compensatory ranked selection model was compared with a non-compensatory ranked model. Initially, ATAR marks and UMAT scores for each applicant were ranked within each cohort. In the compensatory model, the mean of the ATAR and UMAT ranks were used to determine the outcome. In the non-compensatory model, the lowest rank of ATAR and UMAT determined the outcome for each applicant. The impact of each model on the gender and socioeconomic status of applicants selected to interview was evaluated across all cohorts. The non-compensatory ranked selection model resulted in substantially higher ATAR and UMAT thresholds for invitation to interview, with no significant effect on the socioeconomic status of the selected applicants. These results are important, demonstrating that it is possible to raise the academic threshold for selection to medicine without having any negative impact on applicants from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Overall, the evidence gathered in this study suggests that a non-compensatory model is preferable for selecting applicants for medical student selection interview.Funding Information
- UMAT Consortium and the Australian Council for Educational Research (N/A)
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Does community health care require different competencies from physicians and nurses?BMC Medical Education, 2014
- Same admissions tools, different outcomes: a critical perspective on predictive validity in three undergraduate medical schoolsBMC Medical Education, 2013
- Socio-economic predictors of performance in the Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test (UMAT)BMC Medical Education, 2013
- University admission models that address quality and equityAsia Pacific Journal of Education, 2012
- Use of UKCAT scores in student selection by UK medical schools, 2006-2010BMC Medical Education, 2011
- Potential influence of selection criteria on the demographic composition of students in an Australian medical schoolBMC Medical Education, 2011
- How well do selection tools predict performance later in a medical programme?Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2011
- Assessment for selection for the health care professions and specialty training: Consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 ConferenceMedical Teacher, 2011
- Selection for Medical Education and TrainingPublished by Wiley ,2010
- Efficacies of Measures of Association for Ordinal Contingency TablesJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1978