Search

Introducing critical thinking and evidence-based dentistry (EBD) content into an established dental curriculum can be a difficult and challenging process. Over the past three years, the University of Iowa College of Dentistry has developed and implemented a progressive four-year integrated critical thinking and EBD curriculum. The objective of this article is to describe the development and implementation process to make it available as a model for other dental schools contemplating introduction of critical thinking and EBD into their curricula. The newly designed curriculum built upon an existing problem-based learning foundation, which introduces critical thinking and the scientific literature in the D1 year, in order to expose students to the rationale and resources for practicing EBD in the D2 and D3 years and provide opportunities to practice critical thinking and apply the EBD five-step process in the D2, D3, and D4 years. All curricular content is online, and D3 and D4 EBD activities are integrated within existing clinical responsibilities. The curricular content, student resources, and student activities are described.

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.

Motivated by external factors and an interest in providing the highest quality of patient care, the University of Iowa implemented a criminal background check process for all health science students in 2004. The authors detail the principles that guided policies and procedures that were put into place at university and collegiate levels to ensure that applicants and students understand the process; that an individualized review of criminal conduct reported in a background check occurs; and that fair and consistent action is taken in cases considered. The number and type of infractions reviewed by the Carver College of Medicine during a four-year period are conveyed as well as national statistics resulting from the criminal background check pilot operated by the American Medical College Application Service. The authors conclude that criminal background checks are an effective tool to be used for screening purposes before students are allowed patient contact but there must be clear procedures that are communicated to applicants and students as well as considered action taken when problematic behavior is uncovered by the check.

Background: Researchers generally recommend a structured format for the medical school preadmission interview (MSPI). However, the relative benefits of various elements of structure remain unexamined. Purpose: 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. Method: 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. Results: Using different questions for each interviewee is practically as reliable as using the same questions for all applicants (G =. 55 vs.. 57, respectively). Conclusions: Because there are a number of drawbacks to using the same questions for all applicants (i.e., security and validity) and little adva...

Purpose: The underrepresentation of certain minorities within medical education and the medical profession continues to be a problem. A review of the relevant research literature suggests current strategies are inadequate to address this important problem. Psychometric issues important in differentiating the unique concerns of medical education must be defined. Summary: A new model that may attain diversity goals and meet standards related to validity and legality is presented. Admissions data describing applicants for one year at a large midwestern medical college are analyzed. The impact of selection techniques on both majority and underrepresented minority applicants is presented. Conclusion: The results of the analyses support further research designed to meet the quantitative objectives implied by diversity goals and suggests initiatives aimed at enhancing minority representation within medical education.

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.

In an earlier study it was demonstrated that constrained optimization could be used to accurately translate admission goals. Constrained optimization differs from weighting equations in that it does not assign a rank ordering. Although constrained optimization is conceptually superior, some procedures within the admissions process require a rank ordering of applicants.The purpose of this study is to describes and evaluate the use of two discriminant analysis procedures to obtain a rank order list by generating weights that model constrained optimization procedures. This study also evaluates the usefulness of an additional method that does not require a rank ordering.Premium Solver selected a class from the 1998/99 applicant pool. A discriminant analysis was used to generate a discriminant function for modeling the dichotomous group classification selection variable. These weights were then applied and the discriminant function values calculated. The success of the procedure was evaluated by examining rank orders and the magnitude of the correlation and R-square statistic.Discriminant analysis accounted for 70% of the decision variance generated by the constrained optimization procedure. Using real data allowed an estimate of the number of students impacted by inconsistent outcomes.Discriminant analysis could be used to manage an alternate list, however it will be based on somewhat different criteria than the initial selection procedure. Each method evaluated has advantages and disadvantages and the selection of one method over another depends on what outcomes are most valued by the college.