Presentation Description
Sharona Kanofsky1
Marla Nayer1, Peter Tzakas1 and Melissa Hynes1
1 University of Toronto
Marla Nayer1, Peter Tzakas1 and Melissa Hynes1
1 University of Toronto
Background
Admissions to healthcare programs is a competitive process. Selection criteria should predict the best future healthcare providers (HCPs). Past academic scores predict future scores, but beyond grades, do selection criteria truly predict the best HCPs? This study aimed to determine if the selection process in one Physician Assistant (PA) program in Canada predicts student performance.
Admissions to healthcare programs is a competitive process. Selection criteria should predict the best future healthcare providers (HCPs). Past academic scores predict future scores, but beyond grades, do selection criteria truly predict the best HCPs? This study aimed to determine if the selection process in one Physician Assistant (PA) program in Canada predicts student performance.
Summary of work
University of Toronto’s PA program admissions process consists of an application file review and a multiple mini interview (MMI). File review of approximately 1000 applicants includes scores for grade point average, prior healthcare experience, personal statements, and references. Approximately 100 candidates are invited to the MMI based on the file review score. Of these, 30 candidates are admitted based on MMI score.
In this study, four PA faculty ranked former students in three graduating cohorts base on the faculty’s impression of overall performance at graduation. Faculty placed each student in upper 20%, middle 60%, or lower 20% of their class. Rankings were compared to admissions components.
Results
Faculty ranking correlated significantly with file review scores. There was strong inter-faculty agreement. Faculty ranking did not correlate with candidate ranking post-MMI.
Discussion
Healthcare program admissions is resource intensive. Evidence can inform effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness. Our findings support the file review process by demonstrating that
faculty impressions and file review scores correlate well. Consistent with the literature on MMIs, we found no correlation between faculty and post-MMI ranking. Study limitations include a small sample size, and that two faculty were non-clinical.
Conclusions
Faculty rankings at the end of PA education correlated well with file review ranking.
Take-home messages and implications
Selecting students for healthcare education is challenging. We must determine which selection components best predict successful HCPs. This study should continue to collect more data and further investigate the contribution of MMIs.
Selecting students for healthcare education is challenging. We must determine which selection components best predict successful HCPs. This study should continue to collect more data and further investigate the contribution of MMIs.
References (maximum three)
Henderson, M. C., C. J. Kelly, E. Griffin, T. R. Hall, A. Jerant, E. M. Peterson, J. A. Rainwater, F. J. Sousa, D. Wofsy and P. Franks (2018). "Medical school applicant characteristics associated with performance in Multiple Mini-Interviews versus traditional interviews: A multi-Institutional study." Academic Medicine 93(7): 1029-1034.
Pau, A., K. Jeevaratnam, Y. S. Chen, A. A. Fall, C. Khoo and V. D. Nadarajah (2013). "The Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) for student selection in health professions training – A systematic review." Medical Teacher 35(12): 1027-1041.
Rees, E. L., A. W. Hawarden, G. Dent, R. Hays, J. Bates and A. B. Hassell (2016). "Evidence regarding the utility of multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 37." Medical Teacher 38(5): 443- 455.