• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

当前的医学生面试官会在对医学院申请者的评估中添加数据。

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

机构信息

New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07101-5292, USA.

出版信息

Med Educ Online. 2010 Jun 9;15. doi: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5245.

DOI:10.3402/meo.v15i0.5245
PMID:20548967
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2883867/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that the addition of current medical student interviewers (CMSI) to faculty interviewers (FI) is valuable to the medical school admissions process. This study provides objective data about the contribution of CMSI to the admissions process.

METHOD

Thirty-six applicants to a 4-year medical school program were interviewed by both CMSI and FI, and the evaluations completed by the two groups of interviewers were compared. Both FI and CMSI assessed each applicant's motivation, medical experiences, personality, communication skills, and interests outside of the medical field, and provided a numerical score for each applicant on an evaluation form. Both objective and subjective data were then extracted from the evaluation forms, and paired t-test and rank order tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

When compared with FI, CMSI wrote two to three times more words on the applicants' motivation, personality, communication skills, interests, and overall evaluation sections (p<0.001) and provided about 60% more examples on the motivation section (p=0.0011) and communication skills section (p=0.0035). In contrast, FI and CMSI provided similar numbers of negative examples in these and in the personality section and equivalent overall numerical evaluation scores.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that when compared with FI, CMSI give equivalent overall evaluation scores to medical school candidates but provide additional potentially useful information particularly in the areas of motivation and communication skills to committees assigned the task of selecting students to be admitted to medical school.

摘要

背景

有证据表明,在医学生面试官(CMSI)中加入教师面试官(FI)对医学院招生过程是有价值的。本研究提供了有关 CMSI 对招生过程贡献的客观数据。

方法

36 名申请为期 4 年的医学院项目的申请人同时接受了 CMSI 和 FI 的面试,比较了两组面试官的评估结果。FI 和 CMSI 分别评估了每位申请人的动机、医学经验、个性、沟通技巧和医学领域以外的兴趣,并在评估表上为每位申请人提供了数字评分。然后从评估表中提取客观和主观数据,并进行配对 t 检验和秩和检验进行统计分析。

结果

与 FI 相比,CMSI 在申请人的动机、个性、沟通技巧、兴趣和整体评估部分的文字量增加了两到三倍(p<0.001),在动机部分(p=0.0011)和沟通技巧部分(p=0.0035)提供了大约 60%的更多示例。相比之下,FI 和 CMSI 在这些部分以及个性部分提供了相似数量的负面示例,并给出了等效的总体数字评估分数。

结论

这些结果表明,与 FI 相比,CMSI 对医学院考生的总体评估分数相当,但在动机和沟通技巧等领域提供了更多潜在有用的信息,特别是在委员会选拔学生入读医学院的任务中。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8979/2883867/a921d9f75d29/MEO-15-5245-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8979/2883867/00d1c4fdd092/MEO-15-5245-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8979/2883867/a921d9f75d29/MEO-15-5245-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8979/2883867/00d1c4fdd092/MEO-15-5245-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/8979/2883867/a921d9f75d29/MEO-15-5245-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Current medical student interviewers add data to the evaluation of medical school applicants.当前的医学生面试官会在对医学院申请者的评估中添加数据。
Med Educ Online. 2010 Jun 9;15. doi: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5245.
2
Students versus faculty members as admissions interviewers: comparisons of ratings data and admissions decisions.学生与教职员工作为招生面试官:评分数据和招生决策的比较。
Acad Med. 2012 Apr;87(4):458-62. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318249687d.
3
The influence of MCAT and GPA preadmission academic metrics on interview scores.MCAT 和 GPA 入学前学术指标对面试成绩的影响。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018 Mar;23(1):151-158. doi: 10.1007/s10459-017-9779-9. Epub 2017 May 13.
4
Influence of medical school applicants' demographic and cognitive characteristics on interviewers' ratings of noncognitive traits.医学院申请者的人口统计学和认知特征对面试官非认知特质评分的影响。
Acad Med. 1995 Jun;70(6):532-6. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199506000-00015.
5
Comparison of student and faculty interviewers using ratings data for admissions decisions.学生和教师面试官使用评分数据进行招生决策的比较。
Eur J Dent Educ. 2023 Aug;27(3):541-546. doi: 10.1111/eje.12839. Epub 2022 Aug 4.
6
New non-cognitive procedures for medical applicant selection: a qualitative analysis in one school.医学申请者选拔的新非认知程序:一所学校的定性分析
BMC Med Educ. 2014 Nov 7;14:237. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-237.
7
Equity in interviews: do personal characteristics impact on admission interview scores?面试中的公平性:个人特征是否会影响录取面试成绩?
Med Educ. 2010 Nov;44(11):1077-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03771.x.
8
Influence of the interview on the evaluation of applicants to medical school.面试对医学院校申请者评估的影响。
Acad Med. 1996 Oct;71(10):1093-5. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199610000-00017.
9
An equivalence study of interview platform: Does videoconference technology impact medical school acceptance rates of different groups?访谈平台的等效性研究:视频会议技术是否会影响医学院对不同群体的录取率?
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018 Aug;23(3):601-610. doi: 10.1007/s10459-018-9817-2. Epub 2018 Feb 14.
10
The interview in the admission process.录取过程中的面试。
Acad Med. 1990 Mar;65(3):167-77. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199003000-00008.

引用本文的文献

1
Medical Student Involvement and Perceptions of the Admissions Process.医学生对招生过程的参与度和看法。
Med Sci Educ. 2020 Mar 23;30(2):679-683. doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-00950-z. eCollection 2020 Jun.
2
Perspectives of Medical Student Interviewers Conducting Online Interviews During the COVID-19 Pandemic.COVID-19大流行期间医学生面试官进行在线面试的观点
Med Sci Educ. 2021 Jun 2;31(4):1257. doi: 10.1007/s40670-021-01341-8. eCollection 2021 Aug.
3
The role of general practitioners in medical school admission interview panels in the UK (2012-2014): a national survey.

本文引用的文献

1
The medical student interviewer.医学生面试官。
Med Educ. 2008 Jul;42(7):746. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03117.x. Epub 2008 May 23.
2
Contribution of medical students to admission interviews.医学生在入学面试中的贡献。
Med Educ. 2008 Mar;42(3):315-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02966.x. Epub 2008 Jan 24.
3
Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.入学面试评分的条件可靠性:极端评分提供的信息最多。
英国全科医生在医学院入学面试小组中的角色(2012 - 2014年):一项全国性调查。
JRSM Open. 2016 Jul 1;7(7):2054270416632706. doi: 10.1177/2054270416632706. eCollection 2016 Jul.
Med Educ. 2007 Jan;41(1):32-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02634.x.
4
A cost efficiency comparison between the multiple mini-interview and traditional admissions interviews.多次小型面试与传统入学面试之间的成本效益比较。
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008 Mar;13(1):43-58. doi: 10.1007/s10459-006-9029-z. Epub 2006 Sep 29.
5
Medical student selection: choice of a semi-structured panel interview or an unstructured one-on-one interview.医学生选拔:选择半结构化小组面试还是非结构化一对一面试。
Med Teach. 2005 Sep;27(6):499-503. doi: 10.1080/01421590500087340.
6
The ability of the multiple mini-interview to predict preclerkship performance in medical school.多次迷你面试预测医学院预科阶段表现的能力。
Acad Med. 2004 Oct;79(10 Suppl):S40-2. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200410001-00012.
7
The relationship between interviewers' characteristics and ratings assigned during a multiple mini-interview.多位迷你面试中面试官特征与所给评分之间的关系。
Acad Med. 2004 Jun;79(6):602-9. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200406000-00021.
8
An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview.一次入学客观结构化临床考试:多重迷你面试。
Med Educ. 2004 Mar;38(3):314-26. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01776.x.
9
Assessing personal qualities in medical school admissions.评估医学院招生中的个人品质。
Acad Med. 2003 Mar;78(3):313-21. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200303000-00016.
10
Validity of admissions measures in predicting performance outcomes: the contribution of cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions.入学评估措施在预测学业成绩结果方面的有效性:认知和非认知维度的作用。
Teach Learn Med. 2002 Winter;14(1):34-42. doi: 10.1207/S15328015TLM1401_9.