PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9743811

Faculty mentoring programme--ways of reducing anonymity.

Abstract

Increasing anonymity and the lack of personal contact between professor and student due to high enrolment is one of the major problems at German universities. Therefore, the Faculty of Medicine of the University of the Saarland started a pilot project in 1995. The intention was to reduce anonymity within the faculty by introducing a faculty mentoring programme (Studientutorium). A group of up to 12 students from different years is allocated a faculty member on a personal basis. The member responds to questions and problems concerning such areas as the curriculum, career planning or doctoral thesis as well as to personal problems. After 2 years participants were interviewed about the programme for the first time and the acceptance turned out to be high.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Woessner, M Honold, I Stehle, S Stehr, W I Steudel. 1998. Faculty mentoring programme--ways of reducing anonymity.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00254.x

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↗