The effect of defined violations of test security on admissions outcomes using multiple mini‐interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Heterogeneous results exist regarding the impact of security violations on student performances in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). Three separate studies investigate whether anticipated security violations result in undesirable enhancement of MMI performance ratings. METHODS: Study 1: low-stakes: MMI station stems provided to a random half of 57 medical school applicants 2 weeks in advance of participation in a research study. Study 2: high-stakes: 384 medical school applicants sat a 12-station MMI to determine admission. Each half received 1 of 2 pilot MMI station stems 2 weeks in advance. Study 3: high-stakes: 38 interviewees with dual applications to occupational therapy and physiotherapy experienced the same 7-station MMI twice on the same date. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in MMI performances were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Predictable violations of MMI security do not unduly influence applicant performance ratings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".