A systematic review of stakeholder views of selection methods for medical schools admission

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Kelly, Maureen E.
dc.contributor.author Patterson, F.
dc.contributor.author O'Flynn, Siun
dc.contributor.author Mulligan, J.
dc.contributor.author Murphy, Andrew W.
dc.date.accessioned 2018-09-20T15:53:41Z
dc.date.available 2018-09-20T15:53:41Z
dc.date.issued 2018
dc.identifier.citation Kelly, M. E., Patterson, F., O’Flynn, S., Mulligan, J. and Murphy, A. W. (2018) 'A systematic review of stakeholder views of selection methods for medical schools admission', BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 139 (26pp). doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1235-x en
dc.identifier.volume 18
dc.identifier.startpage 1
dc.identifier.endpage 26
dc.identifier.issn 1472-6920
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10468/6833
dc.identifier.doi 10.1186/s12909-018-1235-x
dc.description.abstract Background: The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the literature with respect to stakeholder views of selection methods for medical school admissions. Methods: An electronic search of nine databases was conducted between January 2000-July 2014. Two reviewers independently assessed all titles (n = 1017) and retained abstracts (n = 233) for relevance. Methodological quality of quantitative papers was assessed using the MERSQI instrument. The overall quality of evidence in this field was low. Evidence was synthesised in a narrative review. Results: Applicants support interviews, and multiple mini interviews (MMIs). There is emerging evidence that situational judgement tests (SJTs) and selection centres (SCs) are also well regarded, but aptitude tests less so. Selectors endorse the use of interviews in general and in particular MMIs judging them to be fair, relevant and appropriate, with emerging evidence of similarly positive reactions to SCs. Aptitude tests and academic records were valued in decisions of whom to call to interview. Medical students prefer interviews based selection to cognitive aptitude tests. They are unconvinced about the transparency and veracity of written applications. Perceptions of organisational justice, which describe views of fairness in organisational processes, appear to be highly influential on stakeholders' views of the acceptability of selection methods. In particular procedural justice (perceived fairness of selection tools in terms of job relevance and characteristics of the test) and distributive justice (perceived fairness of selection outcomes in terms of equal opportunity and equity), appear to be important considerations when deciding on acceptability of selection methods. There were significant gaps with respect to both key stakeholder groups and the range of selection tools assessed. Conclusions: Notwithstanding the observed limitations in the quality of research in this field, there appears to be broad concordance of views on the various selection methods, across the diverse stakeholders groups. This review highlights the need for better standards, more appropriate methodologies and for broadening the scope of stakeholder research. en
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf en
dc.language.iso en en
dc.publisher BMC en
dc.relation.uri https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1235-x
dc.rights © 2018, the Authors. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. en
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject Stakeholders en
dc.subject Views en
dc.subject Organisational justice en
dc.subject Medical schools en
dc.title A systematic review of stakeholder views of selection methods for medical schools admission en
dc.type Review en
dc.internal.authorcontactother Siun O'Flynn, Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. +353-21-490-3000 Email: siun.oflynn@ucc.ie en
dc.internal.availability Full text available en
dc.description.version Published Version en
dc.description.status Peer reviewed en
dc.identifier.journaltitle BMC Medical Education en
dc.internal.IRISemailaddress siun.oflynn@ucc.ie en
dc.identifier.articleid 139


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2018, the Authors. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2018, the Authors. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
This website uses cookies. By using this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with the UCC Privacy and Cookies Statement. For more information about cookies and how you can disable them, visit our Privacy and Cookies statement