Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.

School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health

Staff Members

Publication details for Dr Bryan Burford

Campbell, M., Illing, J., Kergon C., Thompson, N., Burford, B., Morrow, G., Crampton, P., Haig, A. & Spencer, J. (2010), Selection methods for Foundation Programme: A literature review, 14th Ottawa Conference: Assessment of Competence in Medicine and the Healthcare Professions. Miami, USA., AMEE.

Author(s) from Durham

Abstract

Background: The Northern Deanery Research Team conducted a systematic literature review on
selection methods for Foundation Programme, commissioned by the UK Medical Schools Council.
Summary of work: A search of published literature on selection in a clinical context produced 13,642
􀍚􀅚􀅝􀆚􀆐􀍛􀍘􀀃 After duplicates and irrelevant articles were eliminated, 910 abstracts were read to ensure they
met criteria (clinical domain, related to selection, primary data, English language, peer-reviewed). Full
papers were read for 359 articles. Of these, 190 were regarded as particularly relevant and reviewed in
detail. Selection methods reviewed included: interviews, multiple mini interviews (MMIs), national
examinations, academic grades, standardised tests, non-cognitive tests, personal statements, and
assessment centres. Each method was assessed with regard to validity, reliability, and user reactions.
Summary of results: Strengths and weaknesses of each method were summarised. For example, the
validity and reliability of interviews varied considerably across studies, but were generally better with
increased structure. MMIs emerged as reliable and valid measures of non-cognitive attributes, but were
labour intensive to develop. Exams and grades tended to predict later academic performance but not
clinical practice.
Conclusions and Take home messages: Selection methods vary with respect to their validity, reliability
and user reactions. A combination of several methods may offer the best solution.Background: The Northern Deanery Research Team conducted a systematic literature review on
selection methods for Foundation Programme, commissioned by the UK Medical Schools Council.
Summary of work: A search of published literature on selection in a clinical context produced 13,642
􀍚􀅚􀅝􀆚􀆐􀍛􀍘􀀃 After duplicates and irrelevant articles were eliminated, 910 abstracts were read to ensure they
met criteria (clinical domain, related to selection, primary data, English language, peer-reviewed). Full
papers were read for 359 articles. Of these, 190 were regarded as particularly relevant and reviewed in
detail. Selection methods reviewed included: interviews, multiple mini interviews (MMIs), national
examinations, academic grades, standardised tests, non-cognitive tests, personal statements, and
assessment centres. Each method was assessed with regard to validity, reliability, and user reactions.
Summary of results: Strengths and weaknesses of each method were summarised. For example, the
validity and reliability of interviews varied considerably across studies, but were generally better with
increased structure. MMIs emerged as reliable and valid measures of non-cognitive attributes, but were
labour intensive to develop. Exams and grades tended to predict later academic performance but not
clinical practice.
Conclusions and Take home messages: Selection methods vary with respect to their validity, reliability
and user reactions. A combination of several methods may offer the best solution.

Notes

May 15-19