Abstract
Despite the critical importance of maintaining a valid and transparent selection process that serves the values held by all stakeholders involved in medical education (i.e., students, faculty, society), there continue to be problems with the current state of available admissions protocols. Some problems derive from inertia induced by inaccurate intuitions pertaining to the nature of admissions protocols and the underlying qualities being measured. Others arise from the lack of reliable and valid admissions protocols to capture the non-cognitive qualities of candidates. Still other issues arise from the problem of rumor-based perceptions regarding the qualities for which selection protocols select. Three articles in this issue of Advances in Health Sciences Education present evidence pertaining to the selection of medical personnel. This commentary represents an attempt to bind together these unique perspectives on the admissions process while also casting light on other ways in which human judgment can fail in this domain in the hope that it might help steer decision-makers away from these pitfalls.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albanese, M. A., Snow, M. H., Skochelak, S. E., Huggett. K. N. &Farrell, P. M. (2003). Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions. Academic Medicine 78: 313–321.
Association of Canadian Medical Colleges. (2004). Admissions Requirements of Canadian Faculties of Medicine: Admission in 2004. http: //www.acmc.ca/publications.htm. Last accessed January 27, 2004.
Dawes, R. M., Faust, D. & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243: 1668–1674.
Edwards, J. C., Johnson, E. K. & Molidor, J. B. (1990). The interview in the admission process. Academic Medicine 65: 167–175.
Eva, K. W. (2003). On the generality of speci city. Medical Education 37: 587–588.
Eva, K. W., Neville, A. J. & Norman, G. R. (1998). On the etiology of content speci city: Factors influencing analogical transfer in problem solving. Academic Medicine, 73: S1–S5.
Eva, K. W. & Reiter, H. I. (submitted for publication). Reflecting the relative values of community, faculty, and students in the admissions tools of medical school.
Eva, K. W., Reiter, H. I., Rosenfeld, J. & Norman, G. R. (a, in press). The relationship between interviewer characteristics and ratings assigned during a Multiple Mini-Interview. Academic Medicine.
Eva, K. W., Rosenfeld, J., Reiter, H. I. & Norman, G. R. (b, in press). An Admissions OSCE: The Multiple Mini-Interview. Medical Education.
Eva, K. W., Reiter, H. I., Rosenfeld, J. & Norman, G. R. (c, submitted for publication). The ability of the Multiple Mini-Interview to predict pre-clerkship performance in medical school.
Gilovich, T. (1993). How We Know What Isn’ t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. The Free Press: New York.
Ginsburg, S., Schreiber, M. & Regehr, G. (2004). The lore of admissions policies: Contrasting formal and informal understandings of the residency selection process. Advances in Health Sciences Education 9: this issue.
Kreiter, C. D., Yin, P., Solow, C. &Brennan, R. L. (2004). Investigating the reliability of the medical school admissions interview. Advances in Health Sciences Education 9: this issue.
Kulatunga-Moruzi, C. & Norman, G. R. (2002). Validity of admissions measures in predicting performance outcomes: The contribution of cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions. Teaching and Learning in Medicine 14: 34–42.
Marrin, M. L., McIntosh, K. A., Keane, D. & Schmuck, M. L. (2004). Use of the paired-comparison technique to determine the most valued qualities of the McMaster medical programme admissions process. Advances in Health Sciences Education 9: this issue.
Powis D. A. (1998). How to do it -select medical students. British Medical Journal 317: 1149–1150.
Reznick, R. K., Blackmore, D., Cohen, R., Baumber, J., Rothman, A., Smee, S., Chalmers, A., Poldre, P., Birtwhistle, J., Walsh, P., Spady, D. & Bernard, M. (1993). An objective structured clinical examination for the licentiate of the Medical Council of Canada: From research to reality. Academic Medicine 68: S4–S6.
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. (1996). CanMEDs 2000 Project. Skills for the new millennium: Report of the Societal Needs Working Group. http://rcpsc.medical.org/canmeds/index.php. Last accessed January 27, 2004.
Salvatori, P. (2001). Reliability and validity of admissions tools used to select students for the health professions. Advances in Health Sciences Education 6: 159–175.
Schofield, W. & Garrard, J. (1975). Longitudinal study of medical students selected for admission to medical school by actuarial and committee methods. British Journal of Medical Education 9: 86–90.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How questions shape the answers. American Psychologist 54: 93–105.
Turnbull, J., Dano., D. &Norman, G. R. (1996). Content specificity and oral certification exams. Medical Education 30: 56–59.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eva, K.W., Reiter, H.I. Where Judgement Fails: Pitfalls in the Selection Process for Medical Personnel. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 9, 161–174 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000027479.14637.6c
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000027479.14637.6c