New Jersey Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ 07101-5292, USA.
Med Educ Online. 2010 Jun 9;15. doi: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5245.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
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。