MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903513065 · doi:10.15694/mep.2018.0000274.1

Beyond cognitive measures: Empirical evidence supporting holistic medical school admissions practices and professional identity formation

2018· article· en· W2903513065 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sandra Yingling, Yoon Soo Park, Raymond H. Curry, Verna Monson, Jorge A. Girotti

Bibliographic record

VenueMedEdPublish · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Education and Admissions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsSituational ethicsIdentity (music)PsychologyCognitionTest (biology)Medical educationSocial psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background: Medical schools seek admissions methods that identify applicants who hold promise to become physicians who will navigate and shape the future medical landscape. The focus on traditional cognitive measures for admission has prompted calls for holistic admissions review during the past five years. Yet, empirical evidence linking selection measures to holistic admissions practices has not been fully established, including their relationship with professional identity formation over time. A non-cognitive admissions situational judgment screening test (CASPer) measuring personal and professional characteristics was added to the University of Illinois College of Medicine admissions process two years ago, as we implemented a new curriculum that emphasizes professional identity development. Purpose: This study examined associations among admissions measures (Medical College Admission Test [MCAT], grade point average [GPA], interview, and CASPer), and their predictive relationships with curricular measures of professional identity formation (Professional Identity Essay [PIE]) and moral reasoning (Defining Issues Test [DIT2]). Methods: Data were taken from two entering cohorts (n = 596; entering class of 2017 and 2018 across 3 regional sites). Correlations and regression analyses were used to examine associations between admissions and professional identity measures. Results: CASPer and in-person admissions interview ratings had significant positive correlations, suggesting that CASPer can contribute to effective screening processes. In addition, CASPer demonstrated statistically significant positive relationships with professional identity (CASPer and PIE, r=.10, p<.05) and a measure of moral reasoning (CASPer and DIT2 type indicator, r=.09, p<.05). Association between CASPer and PIE remained consistent, even after controlling for MCAT, interview, and GPA. Conclusion: Our institutional focus on professional identity formation has provided new ways to conceptualize students' readiness for medical school – demonstrated academic rigor as well as signs of professionalism, ethics, and motivation. Non-academic factors measured in situational judgment tests may promote better alignment of admissions practices and desired educational outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.257
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.264 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedEdPublishSame topicMedical Education and AdmissionsFrench-language works237,207