PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 2012655

A study to examine whether the basic sciences are appropriately organized to meet the future needs of medical education.

Abstract

There is a growing divergence between the content of research activities in the basic sciences and that of the traditional preclinical courses for medical students. A 1977 study at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (Penn) examined the organization of the school's basic sciences, including surveying the research interests and departmental affiliations of 101 basic science faculty at Penn and interviewing the basic science departments chairmen there and at five other research-intensive schools of medicine. The findings demonstrated overlapping interests among basic science investigators, significant blurring of departmental boundaries, and a divergence between the faculty members' research interests and the disciplines represented by the departments in which these faculty held appointments. A second study a decade later documented that this divergence had increased. This paper also addresses the mounting concern among medical educators in response to these kinds of developments, the effect of such developments on medical education, and issues concerning the teaching of basic sciences, course content, the responsibility of schools of medicine for effecting change, and a possible model for basic science instruction.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

V Crown. 1991. A study to examine whether the basic sciences are appropriately organized to meet the future needs of medical education.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199104000-00012

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗