Admission policies and methods at crossroads: a review of medical school admission policies and methods in seven Asian countries / 한국의학교육

Selecting the right applicants is an important part of medical student admission. While one universally accepted selection criterion is academic capacity, there are other criteria such as communication skills and local criteria (e.g., socio-cultural values) that are no less important. This article reviews the policies and methods of selection to medical schools in seven countries with varying socio-economic conditions and healthcare systems. Senior academics involved in medical education in Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and Taiwan completed a pre-agreed pro-forma per each country to describe the country’s admission policies and methods. The details were then compared and contrasted. This review identifies tension between many of the policies and methods used in medical school admissions, such as between the need to assess non-cognitive abilities and widen access, and between the need for more medical professionals and the requirement to set high entry standards. Finding the right balance requires careful consideration of all variables, including the country’s human resource needs; socio-economic status; graduates’ expected competencies; and the school’s vision, mission, and availability of resources.

Does the introduction of a third examiner and global marking improve the generalisability of the surgical long case?

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Planning a high-stake clinical examination requires the evaluation of several psychometric and logistical variables. The authors conducted generalisability and decision studies to answer the following research questions in the context of the surgical long case: (1) Does the addition of a third examiner have any added benefit, vis-à-vis reliability, to the examination? (2) Is global marking more reliable than an itemised marking template? (3) What would be the impact on reliability if there was a reduction in the number of examinees that each panel of examiners is required to assess?</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A third examiner and global marking were introduced. Separate generalisability and decision studies were carried out for both the two- and three-examiner models as well as for itemised and global scores.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The introduction of a third examiner resulted in a modest gain of reliability by 0.05-0.07. Gain in reliability was higher when each candidate was allowed to undertake a higher number of clinical cases. Both the global and itemised scores provided equivalent reliability (generalisability coefficient 0.74-0.89).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Our results showed that only a modest improvement in reliability of the surgical long case is achieved through the introduction of an additional examiner. Although the reliability of global scoring and the itemised marking template was comparable, the latter may provide opportunities for individualised feedback to examinees.</p>