↓ Skip to main content

Impact of holistic review on student interview pool diversity

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Impact of holistic review on student interview pool diversity
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10459-017-9807-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina J. Grabowski

Abstract

Diversity in the physician workforce lags behind the rapidly changing US population. Since the gateway to becoming a physician is medical school, diversity must be addressed in the admissions process. The Association of American Medical Colleges has implemented a Holistic Review Initiative aimed at assisting medical schools with broadening admission criteria to include relevant, mission-driven attributes and experiences in addition to academic preparation to identify applicants poised to meet the needs of a diverse patient population. More evidence is needed to determine whether holistic review results in a more diverse selection process. One of the keys to holistic review is to apply holistic principles in all stages of the selection process to ensure qualified applicants are not overlooked. This study examines whether the use of holistic review during application screening at a new medical school increased the diversity of applicants selected for interview. Using retrospective data from the first five application cycles at the Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine (OUWB), the author compared demographic and experiential differences between the applicants selected using holistic review, including experiences, attributes and academic metrics, to a test sample selected solely using academic metrics. The dataset consisted of the total group of applicants selected for interview in 2011 through 2015 using holistic review (n = 2773) and the same number of applicants who would have been selected for an interview using an academic-only selection model (n = 2773), which included 1204 applicants who were selected using both methods (final n = 4342). The author used a combination of cross-tabulation and analysis of variance to identify differences between applicants selected using holistic review and applicants in the test sample selected using only academics. The holistic review process yielded a significantly higher than expected percent of female (adj. resid. = 13.2, p < .01), traditionally underrepresented in medicine (adj. resid. = 15.8, p < .01), first generation (adj. resid. = 5.8, p < .01), and self-identified disadvantaged (adj resid. = 11.5, p < .01) applicants in the interview pool than selected using academic metrics alone. In addition, holistically selected applicants averaged significantly more hours than academically selected students in the areas of pre-medical school paid employment (F = 10.99, mean difference = 657.99, p < .01) and community service (F = 15.36, mean difference = 475.58, p < .01). Using mission-driven, holistic admissions criteria comprised of applicant attributes and experiences in addition to academic metrics resulted in a more diverse interview pool than using academic metrics alone. These findings add support for the use of holistic review in the application screening process as a means for increasing diversity in medical school interview pools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Other 10 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Unspecified 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 40 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 24%
Social Sciences 13 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Unspecified 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 43 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,657,585
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#418
of 861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,352
of 443,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 861 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 443,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.