PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 8326851

Are medical students missing out?

Abstract

Increasing discontent, even boredom, shown by many clinical medical students is in marked contrast to the enthusiasm of school children interviewed for a place at medical school. The roots of the problem are sown in the pre-clinical years with too much teaching that is of little relevance to clinical practice and insufficient contact with clinical problems that are needed to keep the youthful flame of idealism alive. In clinical years disillusion continues with less time available for teaching by NHS colleagues because of clinical directorates and other administrative chores and a far from ideal balance between teaching and research activities amongst academic staff. To help enthusiasm return we recommend greater clinical involvement in the pre-clinical years, teaching to be better valued and teaching and examination methods reassessed. More self-directed learning, though desirable, will be difficult unless adequate resources are made available. At a time of increased pressure on all sides if we cannot meet the challenge of modern undergraduate clinical education disillusion amongst our students will continue with serious implications for the whole continuum of medical education.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D P Davies, G Shortland. 1993. Are medical students missing out?. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599309029016

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↗