Assessments of Non-academic Attributes in Applicants for Undergraduate Medical Education: an Overview of Advantages and Limitations

Quality Assurance of Undergraduate Medical Education in Israel by Continuous Monitoring and Prioritization of the Accreditation Standards

External accreditation reviews of undergraduate medical curricula play an important role in their quality assurance. However, these reviews occur only at 4-10-year intervals and are not optimal for the immediate identification of problems related to teaching. Therefore, the Standards of Medical Education in Israel require medical schools to engage in continuous, ongoing monitoring of their teaching programs for compliance with accreditation standards. In this paper, we propose the following: (1) this monitoring be assigned to independent medical education units (MEUs), rather than to an infrastructure of the dean's office, and such MEUs to be part of the school governance and draw their authority from university institutions; and (2) the differences in the importance of the accreditation standards be addressed by discerning between the "most important" standards that have been shown to improve student well-being and/or patient health outcomes; "important" standards associated with student learning and/or performance; "possibly important" standards with face validity or conflicting evidence for validity; and "least important" standards that may lead to undesirable consequences. According to this proposal, MEUs will evolve into entities dedicated to ongoing monitoring of the education program for compliance with accreditation standards, with an authority to implement interventions. Hopefully, this will provide MEUs and faculty with the common purpose of meeting accreditation requirements, and an agreed-upon prioritization of accreditation standards will improve their communication and recommendations to faculty.

Evaluating the Whole Applicant: Use of Situational Judgment Testing and Personality Testing to Address Disparities in Resident Selection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Urology program directors are faced with increasing numbers of applications annually, making holistic review of each candidate progressively more difficult. Efforts to streamline evaluation using traditional cognitive metrics have fallen short as these do not predict overall resident performance. Situational judgment tests (SJTs) and personality assessment tools (PATs) have been used in business and industry for decades to evaluate candidates and measure non-cognitive attributes that better predict subsequent performance. The purpose of this review is to describe what these assessments are and the current literature on the use of these metrics in medical education.

RECENT FINDINGS

SJTs relative to PATs have more original research. Data suggests that SJTs decrease bias, increase diversity, and may be predictive of performance in residency. PATs are also emerging with data to support use with ability to assess fit to program and certain traits identified more consistently among high-performing residents and correlation to performance on ACGME milestones. PATs may be more coachable than SJTs. SJTs and PATs are emerging as techniques to supplement the current resident application review process. Early evidence supports their use in undergraduate medical education as does some early preliminary results in graduate medical education.