↓ Skip to main content

Positive predictive value of medical student specialty choices

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 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
Positive predictive value of medical student specialty choices
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1138-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Douglas Jones, Traci Yamashita, Randal G. Ross, Jennifer Gong

Abstract

Although medical school programs oriented toward postgraduate specialty training have the potential to reduce the duration and cost of medical school for US medical students, success depends on the ability of students to predict their postgraduate specialties. It is clear that first-year choices are poorly predictive, but it is not known when predictions become sufficiently reliable to support specialty-oriented learning programs. We therefore examined the predictive value of specialty preferences expressed at the ends of the first, second and third years of medical school and asked whether concurrent expressions of confidence in choices improved predictive ability. We also investigated the possibility that discrepancies between predicted and actual postgraduate specialty training were related to scores on an examination of knowledge in basic biomedical sciences required for US medical school graduation (the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USLME) Step 1 examination). We calculated positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) for specialty choices and the sensitivity and specificity of asking for choices for 634 University of Colorado School of Medicine students who trained in 23 accredited residencies from 2011 through 2015. We examined the effect of confidence in first choices in 609 students, and in 334 students, sought an association between USMLE Step 1 scores and switching from postgraduate training specialties predicted at the end of year 2. The PPV of first choices improved from years 1 through 3. NPV was high throughout. PPVs of year 3 first choices ranged from 79% in Anesthesiology to 95% in Psychiatry. Expressions of confidence in first choices did not improve PPV. Sensitivity of asking for first choices increased with time; specificity was consistently high. USLME Step 1 scores were higher for students who ultimately trained in specialties more competitive than first-choice specialties at the end of year 2. Specialty-oriented learning programs during medical school must accommodate students who change career plans. The PPV of specialty first choices improves each year, but even year 3 predictions can be inaccurate with potential loss of students from specialty-specific programs. USMLE Step 1 scores appeared to affect career plans expressed at the end of year 2.

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 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 %
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 11 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 45%
Social Sciences 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Unknown 10 30%
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 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#6,218,950
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,025
of 3,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,345
of 332,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#24
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,370 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 332,332 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 59% of its contemporaries.