Applying organizational justice theory to admission into higher education: Admission from a student perspective

Widening the Gates: Redefining Excellence in Selection for Health Professions Education for a Diverse Future Workforce

To ensure diversity in the healthcare workforce selection committees must select a cohort of students who collectively possess the wide variety of qualities necessary to serve societal needs. In practice, selection procedures primarily focus on predicting academic outcomes, which are currently based on a limited set of qualities, restricting the definition of excellence in healthcare. The authors propose a shift in the design of selection procedures by including additional considerations - student diversity and applicant perception - to select talented students who can fulfil societal needs. The authors explain the importance of incorporating these considerations into the design of selection procedures and challenges that may arise. To overcome the challenges of incorporating student diversity and applicant perception in the design of selection procedures, a new view on alignment between the profession, training and selection is needed. This starts with redefining excellence in the profession with more explicit attention to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI). The authors argue that by employing an EDI-adjusted model of alignment, selection procedures can enhance academic outcomes, properly recognize the talents of and acknowledge the needs for a diverse future workforce and be perceived as fair by applicants.

Improving selection procedures in health professions education from the applicant perspective: an interview study

INTRODUCTION

Applicant perceptions of selection impact motivation and performance during selection, and student diversity. However, in-depth insight into which values underly these perceptions is lacking, creating challenges for aligning selection procedures with applicant perceptions. This qualitative interview study aimed to identify values applicants believe should underlie selection, and how, according to applicants, these values should be used to make specific improvements to selection procedures in undergraduate health professions education (HPE).

METHODS

Thirty-one applicants to five undergraduate HPE programs in the Netherlands participated in semi-structured interviews using Appreciative Inquiry, an approach that focuses on what goes well to create vision for improvement, to guide the interviews. Transcriptions were analyzed using thematic analysis, adopting a constructivist approach.

RESULTS

Applicants' values related to the aims of selection, the content of selection, and the treatment of applicants. Applicants believed that selection procedures should aim to identify students who best fit the training and profession, and generate diverse student populations to fulfill societal needs. According to applicants, the content of selection should be relevant for the curriculum and profession, assess a comprehensive set of attributes, be of high quality, allow applicants to show who they are, and be adapted to applicants' current developmental state. Regarding treatment, applicants believed that selection should be a two-way process that fosters reflection on study choice, be transparent about what applicants can expect, safeguard applicants' well-being, treat all applicants equally, and employ an equitable approach by taking personal circumstances into account. Applicants mentioned specific improvements regarding each value.

DISCUSSION

Applicants' values offer novel insights into what they consider important preconditions for the design of selection procedures. Their suggested improvements can support selection committees in better meeting applicants' needs.

Selection based on athletics: What price will the candidates pay?

The authors comment on Sgroi et al.'s review of athletes in medicine to stress the importance of investigating potential unintended consequences when using participation in such activity for student selection.

Applicant perceptions of selection methods for health professions education: Rationales and subgroup differences

CONTEXT

Applicant perceptions of selection methods can affect motivation, performance and withdrawal and may therefore be of relevance in the context of widening access. However, it is unknown how applicant subgroups perceive different selection methods.

OBJECTIVES

Using organisational justice theory, the present multi-site study examined applicant perceptions of various selection methods, rationales behind perceptions and subgroup differences.

METHODS

Applicants to five Dutch undergraduate health professions programmes (N = 704) completed an online survey including demographics and a questionnaire on applicant perceptions applied to 11 commonly used selection methods. Applicants rated general favourability and justice dimensions (7-point Likert scale) and could add comments for each method.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics revealed a preference for selection methods on which applicants feel more 'in control': General favourability ratings were highest for curriculum-sampling tests (mean [M] = 5.32) and skills tests (M = 5.13), while weighted lottery (M = 3.05) and unweighted lottery (M = 2.97) were perceived least favourable. Additionally, applicants preferred to distinguish themselves on methods that assess attributes beyond cognitive abilities. Qualitative content analysis of comments revealed several conflicting preferences, including a desire for multiple selection methods versus concerns of experiencing too much stress. Results from a linear mixed model of general favourability indicated some small subgroup differences in perceptions (based on gender, migration background, prior education and parental education), but practical meaning of these differences was negligible. Nevertheless, concerns were expressed that certain selection methods can hinder equitable admission due to inequal access to resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings illustrate that applicants desire to demonstrate a variety of attributes on a combination of selection tools, but also observe that this can result in multiple drawbacks. The present study can help programmes in deciding which selection methods to include, which more negatively perceived methods should be better justified to applicants, and how to adapt methods to meet applicants' needs.

Influence of response instructions and response format on applicant perceptions of a situational judgement test for medical school selection

BACKGROUND

This study examined the influence of two Situational Judgement Test (SJT) design features (response instructions and response format) on applicant perceptions. Additionally, we investigated demographic subgroup differences in applicant perceptions of an SJT.

METHODS

Medical school applicants (N = 372) responded to an online survey on applicant perceptions, including a description and two example items of an SJT. Respondents randomly received one of four SJT versions (should do-rating, should do-pick-one, would do-rating, would do-pick-one). They rated overall favourability and items on four procedural justice factors (face validity, applicant differentiation, study relatedness and chance to perform) and ease-of-cheating. Additionally, applicant perceptions were compared for subgroups based on gender, ethnic background and first-generation university status.

RESULTS

Applicants rated would-do instructions as easier to cheat than should-do instructions. Rating formats received more favourable judgements than pick-one formats on applicant differentiation, study-relatedness, chance to perform and ease of cheating. No significant main effect for demographic subgroup on applicant perceptions was found, but significant interaction effects showed that certain subgroups might have more pronounced preferences for certain SJT design features. Specifically, ethnic minority applicants - but not ethnic majority applicants - showed greater preference for should-do than would-do instructions. Additionally, first-generation university students - but not non-first-generation university students - were more favourable of rating formats than of pick-one formats.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that changing SJT design features may positively affect applicant perceptions by promoting procedural justice factors and reducing perceived ease of cheating and that response instructions and response format can increase the attractiveness of SJTs for minority applicants.

Admission testing for higher education: A multi-cohort study on the validity of high-fidelity curriculum-sampling tests

We investigated the validity of curriculum-sampling tests for admission to higher education in two studies. Curriculum-sampling tests mimic representative parts of an academic program to predict future academic achievement. In the first study, we investigated the predictive validity of a curriculum-sampling test for first year academic achievement across three cohorts of undergraduate psychology applicants and for academic achievement after three years in one cohort. We also studied the relationship between the test scores and enrollment decisions. In the second study, we examined the cognitive and noncognitive construct saturation of curriculum-sampling tests in a sample of psychology students. The curriculum-sampling tests showed high predictive validity for first year and third year academic achievement, mostly comparable to the predictive validity of high school GPA. In addition, curriculum-sampling test scores showed incremental validity over high school GPA. Applicants who scored low on the curriculum-sampling tests decided not to enroll in the program more often, indicating that curriculum-sampling admission tests may also promote self-selection. Contrary to expectations, the curriculum-sampling tests scores did not show any relationships with cognitive ability, but there were some indications for noncognitive saturation, mostly for perceived test competence. So, curriculum-sampling tests can serve as efficient admission tests that yield high predictive validity. Furthermore, when self-selection or student-program fit are major objectives of admission procedures, curriculum-sampling test may be preferred over or may be used in addition to high school GPA.

Lessons learned from 15 years of non-grades-based selection for medical school

CONTEXT

Thirty years ago, it was suggested in the Edinburgh Declaration that medical school applicants should be selected not only on academic, but also on non-academic, attributes. The main rationale behind extending medical school selection procedures with the evaluation of (non-academic) personal qualities is that this will lead to the selection of students who will perform better as a doctor than those who are selected on the basis of academic measures only. A second rationale is the expectation that this will lead to a representative health workforce as a result of reduced adverse impact. The aims of this paper are (i) to describe what can be learned about the use of selection criteria other than grades from over 15 years of Dutch experience and (ii) to summarise current knowledge on the issue of adverse impact in relation to non-grades-based selection.

METHODS

A narrative review was undertaken of the (published) evidence that has resulted from non-grades-based school-specific selection procedures in the Netherlands and from recent explorations of the effect of the use of non-grades-based selection criteria on student diversity.

RESULTS

The Dutch evidence is grouped into five key themes: the effect of participation in voluntary selection procedures, the assessment of pre-university extracurricular activities, the use of work samples, Dutch experiences with situational judgement tests and the effects of changing circumstances. This is followed by several lessons learned for medical schools that aim to increase their student diversity.

CONCLUSION

Over the last 30 years, important steps towards reliable and valid methods for measuring non-academic abilities have been taken. The current paper describes several lessons that can be learned from the steps taken in the Dutch context. The importance of sharing evidence gathered around the globe and building on this evidence to reach our goal of predicting who will be a good doctor is acknowledged.