Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017 May;22(2):447-462. doi: 10.1007/s10459-016-9745-y. Epub 2017 Jan 4.

A multi-site study on medical school selection, performance, motivation and engagement.

Author information

1
Research in Education, VUmc School of Medical Sciences, VU University Medical Center, PK KTC 5.002, Post box 7057, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.wouters@vumc.nl.
2
LEARN! Research Institute for Learning and Education, Faculty of Psychology and Education, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. a.wouters@vumc.nl.
3
Research in Education, VUmc School of Medical Sciences, VU University Medical Center, PK KTC 5.002, Post box 7057, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
4
LEARN! Research Institute for Learning and Education, Faculty of Psychology and Education, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
5
Center for Research and Innovation in Medical Education, UMC Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
6
Center for Evidence-Based Education, AMC-UvA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

Medical schools seek ways to improve their admissions strategies, since the available methods prove to be suboptimal for selecting the best and most motivated students. In this multi-site cross-sectional questionnaire study, we examined the value of (different) selection procedures compared to a weighted lottery procedure, which includes direct admission based on top pre-university grade point averages (≥8 out of 10; top-pu-GPA). We also considered whether students had participated in selection, prior to being admitted through weighted lottery. Year-1 (pre-clinical) and Year-4 (clinical) students completed standard validated questionnaires measuring quality of motivation (Academic Self-regulation Questionnaire), strength of motivation (Strength of Motivation for Medical School-Revised) and engagement (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-Student). Performance data comprised GPA and course credits in Year-1 and clerkship performance in Year-4. Regression analyses were performed. The response rate was 35% (387 Year-1 and 273 Year-4 students). Top-pu-GPA students outperformed selected students. Selected Year-1 students reported higher strength of motivation than top-pu-GPA students. Selected students did not outperform or show better quality of motivation and engagement than lottery-admitted students. Participation in selection was associated with higher engagement and better clerkship performance in Year-4. GPA, course credits and strength of motivation in Year-1 differed between students admitted through different selection procedures. Top-pu-GPA students perform best in the medical study. The few and small differences found raise questions about the added value of an extensive selection procedure compared to a weighted lottery procedure. Findings have to be interpreted with caution because of a low response rate and small group sizes.

KEYWORDS:

Academic performance; Admissions; Engagement; Medical school; Medical students; Motivation; Selection; Self-determination theory

PMID:
28054158
DOI:
10.1007/s10459-016-9745-y
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center