Skip to main content
Log in

Where Judgement Fails: Pitfalls in the Selection Process for Medical Personnel

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. C., Johnson, E. K. & Molidor, J. B. (1990). The interview in the admission process. Academic Medicine 65: 167–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W. (2003). On the generality of speci city. Medical Education 37: 587–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How questions shape the answers. American Psychologist 54: 93–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, J., Dano., D. &Norman, G. R. (1996). Content specificity and oral certification exams. Medical Education 30: 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000027479.14637.6c

Navigation