Veterinary School Admission Interviews, Part 2: Survey of North American Schools
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A study of veterinary school admission interview practices across the USA and Canada was conducted in 1999. All 31 schools responded. INTERVIEW USE: Eighty-four percent of the veterinary schools interview applicants. Veterinary schools are more likely to interview resident than non-resident applicants (62% interviewed >or=49% of their resident applicants, while 77% interviewed <or= 25% of their non-resident applicants).Seventy-two percent of the schools fix the interview weight in the selection process (mean weight is 28%). INTERVIEW PURPOSE AND CONTENT: The most common purposes for conducting a veterinary admission interview are to gather information, to measure non-cognitive/humanistic skills, and to clarify information on the written application (>or=77%). The five most common characteristics and skills the veterinary admission interview is intended to assess are communication skills, maturity, motivation for and interest in veterinary medicine, interpersonal skills, and knowledge of the veterinary profession (>or=92%). The least common characteristic or skill the veterinary admission interview is intended to assess is academic performance (23%). INTERVIEW FORMAT: Veterinary schools are most likely to offer one interview to a candidate (83%). A panel interview with between two and three interviewers is the predominant format employed (92%). The interview is of 20-45 minutes duration (88%), most commonly 30 minutes (50%). Interview questions most often address experiences in veterinary medicine, general background, and strengths and weaknesses (>or=85%). The level of interview structure is low to moderate (73%). The cold or blind interview (where interviewers are denied access to all or part of the written application) is employed by 50% of the interviewing veterinary schools. INTERVIEWERS: Interviewing veterinary schools assign interviewing to faculty veterinarians (100%). Some level of interviewer training is usually provided (87%); the most common mode of training is distribution of printed material (86%). SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The veterinary admissions interview is similar to that employed by schools of medicine, optometry, and dentistry, with the exception that veterinary schools are more likely to use panel interviews, to fix the interview weight in selection decisions, and to employ a cold or blind interview (these differences provide an opportunity to increase interview reliability and validity). Interview reliability and validity can be further improved by increasing interviewer training and interview structure, ensuring that the interview's format is consistent with its purpose, and identifying behavioral characteristics that are consistent with successful practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».