↓ Skip to main content

Testing for medical school selection: What are prospective doctors’ experiences and perceptions of the GAMSAT and what are the consequences of testing?

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
Title
Testing for medical school selection: What are prospective doctors’ experiences and perceptions of the GAMSAT and what are the consequences of testing?
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10459-018-9811-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Kumar, C. Roberts, E. Bartle, D. S. Eley

Abstract

Written tests for selection into medicine have demonstrated reliability and there is accumulating evidence regarding their validity, but we know little about the broader impacts or consequences of medical school selection tests from the perspectives of key stakeholders. In this first Australian study of its kind, we use consequential validity as a theoretical lens to examine how medical school students and applicants view and experience the Graduate Medical Schools Admission Test (GAMSAT), and the consequences of testing. Participants (n = 447) were recruited from five graduate-entry medical schools across Australia and a publicly available online test preparation forum. An online survey was used to gather demographic information, and quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed via descriptive statistics and qualitative data were thematically analysed. The findings showed there was a considerable financial burden associated with preparing for and sitting the GAMSAT and moderate agreement regarding the GAMSAT as a fair selection method. The main unintended consequences of using the GAMSAT as a selection tool included barriers related to test affordability and language, and socialisation into the hidden curriculum of medicine. Selection tools such as the GAMSAT have some limitations when the goals are to support equitable participation in medicine and professional identity development. Our study highlights the value interpretive and theoretically-informed research in contributing to the evidence base on medical school selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Professor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 19 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 23 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,177,668
of 25,455,127 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#347
of 942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,010
of 449,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,455,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
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 449,366 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 69% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.