BackgroundMedical student selection and assessment share an underlying high stakes context with the need for valid and reliable tools. This study examined the predictive validity of three tools commonly used in Australia: previous academic performance (Grade Point Average (GPA)), cognitive aptitude (a national admissions test), and non-academic qualities of prospective medical students (interview).MethodsA four year retrospective cohort study was conducted at Flinders University Australia involving 382 graduate entry medical students first enrolled between 2006 and 2009. The main outcomes were academic and clinical performance measures and an indicator of unimpeded progress across the four years of the course.ResultsA combination of the selection criteria explained between 7.1 and 29.1 % of variance in performance depending on the outcome measure. Weighted GPA consistently predicted performance across all years of the course. The national admissions test was associated with performance in Years 1 and 2 (pre-clinical) and the interview with performance in Years 3 and 4 (clinical). Those students with higher GPAs were more likely to have unimpeded progress across the entire course (OR = 2.29, 95 % CI 1.57, 3.33).ConclusionsThe continued use of multiple selection criteria to graduate entry medical courses is supported, with GPA remaining the single most consistent predictor of performance across all years of the course. The national admissions test is more valuable in the pre-clinical years, and the interview in the clinical years. Future selections research should develop the fledgling research base regarding the predictive validity of the Graduate Australian Medical School Admissions Test (GAMSAT), the algorithms for how individual tools are combined in selection, and further explore the usefulness of the unimpeded progress index.

The primary aim was to explore the factor structure of the Illness Behaviour Questionnaire (IBQ) and the generalisability of the derived dimensions to both general community members and four chronic illness groups. A questionnaire was administered to 675 participants, comprising 344 from the community, 80 with asthma, 95 with diabetes, 79 with chronic pain and 77 with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Illness severity was calculated for all chronic illness participants (self-rated health for community members). Three IBQ scales were derived following an exploratory factor analysis for the whole sample: Affirmation of Illness (α = 0.71 (CFS)-0.79 (asthma, diabetes)), Concern for Health (α = 0.71 (asthma)-0.78 (pain)) and General Affective State (α = 0.70 (CFS)-0.80 (asthma)). Patterns of response across the five samples, and intercorrelations among the new scales and the original seven scales, were largely in accord with expectation. Long-standing criticisms of the IBQ were addressed by using systematic statistical principles to identify meaningful and psychometrically sound IBQ dimensions. The derived structure offers a more parsimonious account of possible illness responses, with the availability of a more concise yet informative index of abnormal illness behaviour having practical utility for researchers and clinicians alike.

No abstract

No abstract

The consistent positive associations obtained among self-efficacy, cognitive risk factor status and health suggest that health professionals involved in cardiac rehabilitation should be encouraged to tailor interventions that allow patients to both improve their understanding of CAD and also to develop greater self-confidence in their ability to implement the acquired knowledge.