↓ Skip to main content

Selection into medical school: from tools to domains

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Selection into medical school: from tools to domains
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0779-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tom M. Wilkinson, Tim J. Wilkinson

Abstract

Most research into the validity of admissions tools focuses on the isolated correlations of individual tools with later outcomes. Instead, looking at how domains of attributes, rather than tools, predict later success is likely to be more generalizable. We aim to produce a blueprint for an admissions scheme that is broadly relevant across institutions. We broke down all measures used for admissions at one medical school into the smallest possible component scores. We grouped these into domains on the basis of a multicollinearity analysis, and conducted a regression analysis to determine the independent validity of each domain to predict outcomes of interest. We identified four broad domains: logical reasoning and problem solving, understanding people, communication skills, and biomedical science. Each was independently and significantly associated with performance in final medical school examinations. We identified two potential errors in the design of admissions schema that can undermine their validity: focusing on tools rather than outcomes, and including a wide range of measures without objectively evaluating the independent contribution of each. Both could be avoided by following a process of programmatic assessment for selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 12%
Professor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 42%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Psychology 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 22 February 2017.
All research outputs
#2,254,647
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#337
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,825
of 324,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#5
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 324,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.