Wilcox Richard E, Lawson Kenneth A
College of Pharmacy, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, United States.
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018 Apr;10(4):529-541. doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2017.12.004. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
The goal of the present review was to assess the state of performance prediction in healthcare programs generally, versus performance prediction in pharmacy schools, using didactic and non-didactic admissions measures. This is important because clinical success represents a combination of skills that are not fully predicted by either type of measure alone.
PubMed searches were conducted focusing on work published from 2000 onwards, since it is during this period that non-didactic admissions measures have come to be incorporated into the applicant evaluation process. Relevant free full text papers available were used. When these papers were not available by direct import into EndNote, we went directly to the journal to try to retrieve the paper.
We acknowledge that health professions programs have been successful in recruiting excellent candidates into their schools. However, based on the modest amount of healthcare program performance accounted for by didactic measures, admissions committees should consider expanding their holistic evaluation of applicants. Schools would benefit from using two-step screening phases in the application process - perhaps evaluating didactic potential in phase 1 and experiential in phase 2. Using combination measures throughout the admission process should help ensure admission of students more likely to be successful throughout their healthcare practice.
Future investigations of the prediction of healthcare program performance by formal combinations of didactic and non-didactic admissions measures are imperative. In addition, it is likely that combination admission measures will incorporate more metrics of critical thinking than do simpler approaches. Furthermore, systematic evaluation of the usefulness of the two-step screening approaches to admissions used by most competitive health professions programs also needs to be done.
本综述的目的是总体评估医疗保健项目中的表现预测状况,对比药学院中使用教学和非教学录取措施的表现预测情况。这一点很重要,因为临床成功代表了一系列技能的组合,而这两种单独的措施都无法完全预测这些技能。
进行了PubMed搜索,重点关注2000年以后发表的研究,因为正是在此期间非教学录取措施开始被纳入申请人评估过程。使用了可得的相关免费全文论文。当这些论文无法直接导入EndNote时,我们直接前往期刊试图获取该论文。
我们承认健康专业项目在招收优秀学生方面取得了成功。然而,鉴于教学措施在医疗保健项目表现中所占比例不大,录取委员会应考虑扩大对申请人的整体评估。学校在申请过程中采用两步筛选阶段将有所裨益——或许在第一阶段评估教学潜力,在第二阶段评估实践经验。在整个录取过程中使用综合措施应有助于确保录取那些在整个医疗实践中更有可能取得成功的学生。
必须对教学和非教学录取措施的正式组合对医疗保健项目表现的预测进行未来研究。此外,综合录取措施可能会比更简单的方法纳入更多批判性思维的指标。此外,还需要对大多数竞争激烈的健康专业项目所采用的两步筛选录取方法的有效性进行系统评估。