The relative reliability of actively participating and passively observing raters in a simulation-based assessment for selection to specialty training in anaesthesia

Utility of selection methods for specialist medical training: A BEME (best evidence medical education) systematic review: BEME guide no. 45

BACKGROUND

Selection into specialty training is a high-stakes and resource-intensive process. While substantial literature exists on selection into medical schools, and there are individual studies in postgraduate settings, there seems to be paucity of evidence concerning selection systems and the utility of selection tools in postgraduate training environments.

AIM

To explore, analyze and synthesize the evidence related to selection into postgraduate medical specialty training.

METHOD

Core bibliographic databases including PubMed; Ovid Medline; Embase, CINAHL; ERIC and PsycINFO were searched, and a total of 2640 abstracts were retrieved. After removing duplicates and screening against the inclusion criteria, 202 full papers were coded, of which 116 were included.

RESULTS

Gaps in underlying selection frameworks were illuminated. Frameworks defined by locally derived selection criteria, and heavily weighed on academic parameters seem to be giving way to the evidencing of competency-based selection approaches in some settings. Regarding selection tools, we found favorable psychometric evidence for multiple mini-interviews, situational judgment tests and clinical problem-solving tests, although the bulk of evidence was mostly limited to the United Kingdom. The evidence around the robustness of curriculum vitae, letters of recommendation and personal statements was equivocal. The findings on the predictors of past performance were limited to academic criteria with paucity of long-term evaluations. The evidence around nonacademic criteria was inadequate to make an informed judgment.

CONCLUSIONS

While much has been gained in understanding the utility of individual selection methods, though the evidence around many of them is equivocal, the underlying theoretical and conceptual frameworks for designing holistic and equitable selection systems are yet to be developed.

How effective are selection methods in medical education? A systematic review

CONTEXT

Selection methods used by medical schools should reliably identify whether candidates are likely to be successful in medical training and ultimately become competent clinicians. However, there is little consensus regarding methods that reliably evaluate non-academic attributes, and longitudinal studies examining predictors of success after qualification are insufficient. This systematic review synthesises the extant research evidence on the relative strengths of various selection methods. We offer a research agenda and identify key considerations to inform policy and practice in the next 50 years.

METHODS

A formalised literature search was conducted for studies published between 1997 and 2015. A total of 194 articles met the inclusion criteria and were appraised in relation to: (i) selection method used; (ii) research question(s) addressed, and (iii) type of study design.

RESULTS

Eight selection methods were identified: (i) aptitude tests; (ii) academic records; (iii) personal statements; (iv) references; (v) situational judgement tests (SJTs); (vi) personality and emotional intelligence assessments; (vii) interviews and multiple mini-interviews (MMIs), and (viii) selection centres (SCs). The evidence relating to each method was reviewed against four evaluation criteria: effectiveness (reliability and validity); procedural issues; acceptability, and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence shows clearly that academic records, MMIs, aptitude tests, SJTs and SCs are more effective selection methods and are generally fairer than traditional interviews, references and personal statements. However, achievement in different selection methods may differentially predict performance at the various stages of medical education and clinical practice. Research into selection has been over-reliant on cross-sectional study designs and has tended to focus on reliability estimates rather than validity as an indicator of quality. A comprehensive framework of outcome criteria should be developed to allow researchers to interpret empirical evidence and compare selection methods fairly. This review highlights gaps in evidence for the combination of selection tools that is most effective and the weighting to be given to each tool.