| Title |
Qualitative analysis of MMI raters’ scorings of medical school candidates: A matter of taste?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Health Sciences Education, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10459-017-9794-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mette K. Christensen, Eva Lykkegaard, Ole Lund, Lotte D. O’Neill |
| Abstract |
Recent years have seen leading medical educationalists repeatedly call for a paradigm shift in the way we view, value and use subjectivity in assessment. The argument is that subjective expert raters generally bring desired quality, not just noise, to performance evaluations. While several reviews document the psychometric qualities of the Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI), we currently lack qualitative studies examining what we can learn from MMI raters' subjectivity. The present qualitative study therefore investigates rater subjectivity or taste in MMI selection interview. Taste (Bourdieu 1984) is a practical sense, which makes it possible at a pre-reflective level to apply 'invisible' or 'tacit' categories of perception for distinguishing between good and bad. The study draws on data from explorative in-depth interviews with 12 purposefully selected MMI raters. We find that MMI raters spontaneously applied subjective criteria-their taste-enabling them to assess the candidates' interpersonal attributes and to predict the candidates' potential. In addition, MMI raters seemed to share a taste for certain qualities in the candidates (e.g. reflectivity, resilience, empathy, contact, alikeness, 'the good colleague'); hence, taste may be the result of an ongoing enculturation in medical education and healthcare systems. This study suggests that taste is an inevitable condition in the assessment of students' performance. The MMI set-up should therefore make room for MMI raters' taste and their connoisseurship, i.e. their ability to taste, to improve the quality of their assessment of medical school candidates. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 20% |
| Unknown | 14 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 30% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 19 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,571,666
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#539
of 855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,846
of 320,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.