MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065098022 · doi:10.3138/jvme.28.3.111

Veterinary School Admission Interviews, Part 1: Literature Overview

2001· review· en· W2065098022 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Grant H. Turnwald, Marlee M. Spafford, Janine C. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterviewMedical educationPsychologySemi-structured interviewInterpersonal communicationCognitive interviewMedicineQualitative researchCognitionSocial psychologySociologyPsychiatrySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An analysis of the admission interview used by schools in four health professions (veterinary medicine, allopathic medicine, optometry, and dentistry) portrays a largely similar approach to selection interviews: INTERVIEW USE: At least 80% of schools interview applicants. For schools that offer interviews, at least 40% of candidates are interviewed (a strong academic profile is the number one determinant of receiving an interview offer). The interview is one of the three most important selection tools used by schools. Less than 26% of schools fix the interview's weight in the selection process (fixed weights range from 31% to 35%). INTERVIEW PURPOSE AND CONTENT: The most common purposes of the interview are to (1) gather information, (2) make decisions, (3) verify information provided in other parts of the application, (4) recruit candidates, and/or (5) promote public relations. The most common characteristics and skills interviewers are interested in assessing are motivation for the profession, interpersonal skills, and communication skills. The desire to assess cognitive ability with the interview (>25% of schools) is surprising in view of the use of other selection tools (e.g., GPA). INTERVIEW FORMAT: Medical schools are more likely to offer two interviews per candidate, while optometry schools are more likely to offer one interview per candidate. Individual interviews (one interviewer, one candidate) are the predominant format among medical schools, while panel interviews (more than one interviewer, one candidate) are the most common format among optometry schools. The duration of the interview is 30 to 45 minutes. Interview questions most often address facts and knowledge, hypothetical situations, and the ability to meet program requirements. Most interviews do not meet the criteria for a structured interview, which has demonstrated greater validity and reliability than semi-structured or unstructured interviews. INTERVIEWERS: Interviewers are most likely to be health care faculty members (e.g., veterinarians at a veterinary school). Interviewers receive limited training. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCREASING INTERVIEW RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY: The purpose(s) of the interview must be clearly articulated so that the interview and interviewer training can be designed to achieve that purpose. Interview structure should be increased by developing a "job analysis" set of questions that is posed to all candidates and scored using behavioral anchors. Interviewers should receive more training in rater bias, listening skills, and interview structure. Panel interviews should be used to increase reliability. Interviewers should not have access to the candidate's application unless the interview is used to verify information. To increase the utility of the interview in the selection process, the weight of the interview in relation to other selection components should be determined.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.629
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.005 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207