Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative
dc.contributor.author | Stansfield, R. Brent | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Kreiter, Clarence D. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-06-01T18:22:20Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-06-01T18:22:20Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2007-01 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Brent Stansfield, R; Kreiter, Clarence D (2007). "Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative." Medical Education 41(1): 32-38. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/71581> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0308-0110 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1365-2923 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/71581 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=17209890&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. Objectives To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. Methods A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). Results Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r 2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r 2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). Conclusions Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 580114 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3109 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Publishing Ltd | en_US |
dc.rights | 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. | en_US |
dc.subject.other | School Admission Criteria/*Standards | en_US |
dc.subject.other | *Schools | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Medical | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Interviews/*Standards | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Education | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Medical | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Undergraduate/*Standards | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Validation Studies [Publication Type] | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Observer Variation | en_US |
dc.title | Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Education | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Medicine (General) | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Medical Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | Office of Consultation and Research in Medical Education, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 17209890 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71581/1/j.1365-2929.2006.02634.x.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02634.x | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Medical Education | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Johnson EK, Edwards JC. Current practices in admission interviews at US medical schools. Acad Med 1991; 66: 408 – 12. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Puryear JB, Lewis LA. Description of the interview process in selecting students for admission to US medical schools. J Med Educ 1981; 56: 881 – 5. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kulatunga-Moruzi C, Norman GR. Validity of admissions measures in predicting performance outcomes: the contribution of cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions. Teach Learn Med 2002; 14: 34 – 42. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mitchell K, Haynes R, Koenig J. Assessing the validity of the updated Medical College Admission Test. Acad Med 1994; 69: 394 – 401. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Shahani C, Dipboye RL, Gehrlein TM. The incremental contribution of an interview to college admissions. Educ Psychol Meas 1991; 51: 1049 – 61. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kreiter CD, Yin P, Solow C, Brennan RL. Investigating the reliability of the medical school admissions interview. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2004; 9: 147 – 59. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Kreiter CD, Gordon JA, Elliott S, Callaway M. Recommendations for assigning weights to component tests to derive an overall course grade. Teach Learn Med 2004; 16: 133 – 8. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ehrenfeld M, Tabak N. Value of admission interviews in selecting of undergraduate nursing students. J Nurs Manag 2000; 8: 101 – 6. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Keill SL, Willer B. Detection of psychiatrically at-risk applicants in the medical school admission process. J Med Educ 1985; 60: 800 – 2. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Harasym PH, Woloschuk W, Mandin H, Brundin-Mather R. Reliability and validity of interviewers' judgements of medical school candidates. Acad Med 1996; 71 ( Suppl ): 40 – 2. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tutton PJ. Medical school entrants: semistructured interview ratings, prior scholastic achievement and personality profiles. Med Educ 1993; 27: 328 – 36. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Schmitt N. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychol Assess 1996; 8: 350 – 3. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Raaijmakers QAW, van Hoof A, ‘ t Hart H, Verbogt TFMA, Vollebergh WAM. Adolescents’ midpoint responses on Likert-type scale items: neutral or missing values? Int J Public Opin Res 2000; 12: 208 – 16. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Weems GH, Onwuegbuzie AJ. The impact of midpoint responses and reverse coding on survey data. Meas Eval Counsel Dev 2002; 34: 166 – 76. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 15 American Educational Research Association. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, Standard 2. 14. Washington, DC: AERA 1999; 35. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.