Elina Ng¹
1 Curtin Medical School

Background
Australian medical schools use multi-faceted admissions protocols to select students for their medical program, but the effectiveness of these tools is unclear. 

Summary of work
This study nested within a longitudinal study examines the correlation between Situational Judgement Test (SJT) and Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) scores with well-being and personal characteristics that predict academic success for incoming medical students. The study uses six validated instruments to measure perceived stress, quality of life, and specific personal traits including Tolerance of Ambiguity (ToA), Grit, Conscientiousness and Academic Resilience (AR) for year 1, year 3, and final-year medical students every year. Data for all other variables are sourced from existing admissions and assessment database. 

Results
Data collected suggests a moderate but significant correlation between SJT and MMI scores (r=0.299; p<0.01). None of the selection variables currently used predict success in Years 1, 3, and 5 of MBBS studies. Year 3 medical students report significantly lower QoL (mean=5.95, SD=1.44, N=60) and higher stress levels (mean=2.95, SD=0.71, N=60), compared to Year 1 students. 

Discussion
It is noteworthy that the SJT scores within the UCAT-ANZ test have a significant correlation with the MMI scores. Further research can identify the specific overlap between the two assessment methods, streamlining the medical student selection process. The Undergraduate Medical Education Committee will discuss and investigate the lower quality of life and higher stress of Year 3 students, followed up by the Senior Leadership Group if necessary. 

Conclusions
The primary outcome of the longitudinal study will be available in 2026 when the 2022 matriculating cohort graduates. The medical school will continuously monitor the primary and secondary outcome variables through an annual cross-sectional analysis of cumulative data collected. 

A longitudinal study that tracks admissions, well-being, and assessment data is important for continuous quality improvement. 

References (maximum three) 

References 

1. Lievens, F., Coetsier, P., De Fruyt, F. and De Maeseneer, J. (2002), Medical students' personality characteristics and academic performance: a five-factor model perspective. Medical Education, 36: 1050-1056. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01328.x 

2. Burgis-Kasthala S, Elmitt N, Smyth L, Moore M. (2019). Predicting future performance in medical students. A longitudinal study examining the effects of resilience on low and higher performing students. Med Teach. 41(10):1184–91. 

3. Patterson F, Cleland J, Cousans F. (2017). Selection methods in healthcare professions: where are we now and where next? Adv Health Sci Educ. 2;22(2):229–42.