Search

Critical thinking skills are essential for the successful dentist, yet few explicit skillsets in critical thinking have been developed and published in peer-reviewed literature. The aims of this article are to 1) offer an assessable critical thinking teaching model with the expert's thought process as the outcome, learning guide, and assessment instrument and 2) offer three critical thinking skillsets following this model: for geriatric risk assessment, technology decision making, and situation analysis/reflections. For the objective component, the student demonstrates delivery of each step in the thought process. For the subjective component, the student is judged to have grasped the principles as applied to the patient or case. This article describes the framework and the results of pilot tests in which students in one year at this school used the model in the three areas, earning scores of 90% or above on the assessments. The model was thus judged to be successful for students to demonstrate critical thinking skillsets in the course settings. Students consistently delivered each step of the thought process and were nearly as consistent in grasping the principles behind each step. As more critical thinking skillsets are implemented, a reinforcing network develops.

The medical education research literature consistently recommends a structured format for the medical school preadmission interview. There is, however, little direct evidence to support this recommendation.To shed further light on this issue, the present study examines the respective reliability contributions from the structured and unstructured interview components at the University of Iowa.We conducted three univariate G studies on ratings from 3,043 interviews and one multivariate G study using responses from 168 applicants who interviewed twice.Examining interrater reliability and test-retest types of reliability, the unstructured format proved more reliable in both instances. Yet, combining measures from the two interview formats yielded a more reliable score than using either alone.At least from a reliability perspective, the popular advice regarding interview structure may need to be reconsidered. Issues related to validity, fairness, and reliability should be carefully weighed when designing the interview process.

For medical schools, the increasing presence of women makes it especially important that potential sources of gender bias be identified and removed from student evaluation methods. Our study looked for patterns of gender bias in adjective data used to inform our Medical Student Performance Evaluations (MSPEs). Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to model the latent structure of the adjectives attributed to students (n = 657) and to test for systematic scoring errors by gender. Gender bias was evident in two areas: (a) women were more likely than comparable men to be described as ‘‘compassionate,’’ ‘‘sensitive,’’ and ‘‘enthusiastic’’ and (b) men were more likely than comparable women to be seen as ‘‘quick learners.’’ The gender gap in ‘‘quick learner’’ attribution grows with increasing student proficiency; men’s rate of increase is over twice that of women’s. Technical and nontechnical approaches for ameliorating the impact of gender bias on student recommendations are suggested.

Researchers generally recommend a structured format for the medical school preadmission interview (MSPI). However, the relative benefits of various elements of structure remain unexamined.In this study, we compared the performance of a highly structured interview format with a semistructured format. Specifically, we examined how the reliability of interview ratings is likely to change when using the same versus different questions for each applicant being interviewed.Variance components from a generalizability (G) study of a structured interview are used in decision studies to compare the relative efficiency of using the same versus different questions for each applicant.Using different questions for each interviewee is practically as reliable as using the same questions for all applicants (G = .55 vs. .57, respectively).Because there are a number of drawbacks to using the same questions for all applicants (i.e., security and validity) and little advantage in terms of increased reliability, the semistructured question format should be considered when conducting the MSPI. A suggested method of implementing a semistructured interview is by presenting each applicant a set of questions randomly drawn from a pool of interview questions.

Background: Grading standards vary widely across undergraduate institutions. If, during the medical school admissions process, GPA is considered without reference to the institution attended, it will disadvantage applicants from undergraduate institutions employing rigorous grading standards.Method: A regression-based GPA institutional equating method using historical MCAT and GPA information is described. Classes selected from eight applicant pools demonstrate the impact of the GPA adjustment. The validity of the adjustment is examined by comparing adjusted and unadjusted GPAs’ correlation with USMLE and medical college grades.Results: The adjusted GPA demonstrated significantly improved congruence with MCAT estimates of applicant preparedness. The adjustment changed selection decisions for 21% of those admitted. The adjusted GPA enhanced prediction of USMLE and medical school grades only for students from institutions which required large adjustments. Conclusion: Unlike other indices, the adjustment described uses the same metric as GPA and is based only on an institution’s history of preparing medical school applicants. The institutional adjustment is consequential in selection, significantly enhances congruence with a standardized measure of academic preparedness and may enhance the validity of the GPA.