Applicant perceptions of selection methods for health professions education: Rationales and subgroup differences.

Context: Applicant perceptions of selection methods can affect motivation, performance and withdrawal and may therefore be of relevance in the context of widening access. However, it is unknown how applicant subgroups perceive different selection methods. Objectives: Using organisational justice the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Medical Education Vol. 57; no. 2; pp. 170 - 186
Autores principales: Fikrat‐Wevers, Suzanne, Stegers‐Jager, Karen, Groenier, Marleen, Koster, Andries, Ravesloot, Jan Hindrik, Van Gestel, Renske, Wouters, Anouk, van den Broek, Walter, Woltman, Andrea
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Feb2023
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=161228971&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 161228971
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        03080110
        ESF
      jtl: Medical Education
      issn: 03080110
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Feb2023
      vid: 57
      iid: 2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        161228971
        159785746
        161228971
        161228971
        10.1111/medu.14949
        161228971
      ppf: 170
      ppct: 16
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Applicant perceptions of selection methods for health professions education: Rationales and subgroup differences.
      aug:
        au:
          Fikrat‐Wevers, Suzanne
          Stegers‐Jager, Karen
          Groenier, Marleen
          Koster, Andries
          Ravesloot, Jan Hindrik
          Van Gestel, Renske
          Wouters, Anouk
          van den Broek, Walter
          Woltman, Andrea
        affil: Institute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
      sug:
        subj:
          Education, Health Sciences
          Student Selection
          Student Attitudes Evaluation
          Human
          Male
          Female
          Netherlands
          Motivation
          Student Dropouts
          Qualitative Studies
          Questionnaires
          Content Analysis
          Descriptive Statistics
          Organizational Theory
          Social Justice
          Sex Factors
          Educational Status
          Parents Psychosocial Factors
          Funding Source
          Male
          Female
      ab: Context: Applicant perceptions of selection methods can affect motivation, performance and withdrawal and may therefore be of relevance in the context of widening access. However, it is unknown how applicant subgroups perceive different selection methods. Objectives: Using organisational justice theory, the present multi‐site study examined applicant perceptions of various selection methods, rationales behind perceptions and subgroup differences. Methods: Applicants to five Dutch undergraduate health professions programmes (N = 704) completed an online survey including demographics and a questionnaire on applicant perceptions applied to 11 commonly used selection methods. Applicants rated general favourability and justice dimensions (7‐point Likert scale) and could add comments for each method. Results: Descriptive statistics revealed a preference for selection methods on which applicants feel more 'in control': General favourability ratings were highest for curriculum‐sampling tests (mean [M] = 5.32) and skills tests (M = 5.13), while weighted lottery (M = 3.05) and unweighted lottery (M = 2.97) were perceived least favourable. Additionally, applicants preferred to distinguish themselves on methods that assess attributes beyond cognitive abilities. Qualitative content analysis of comments revealed several conflicting preferences, including a desire for multiple selection methods versus concerns of experiencing too much stress. Results from a linear mixed model of general favourability indicated some small subgroup differences in perceptions (based on gender, migration background, prior education and parental education), but practical meaning of these differences was negligible. Nevertheless, concerns were expressed that certain selection methods can hinder equitable admission due to inequal access to resources. Conclusions: Our findings illustrate that applicants desire to demonstrate a variety of attributes on a combination of selection tools, but also observe that this can result in multiple drawbacks. The present study can help programmes in deciding which selection methods to include, which more negatively perceived methods should be better justified to applicants, and how to adapt methods to meet applicants' needs. The authors report that applicants to undergraduate health professions education prefer selection methods that provide a sense of control and allow the demonstration of more than just academic ability.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N