» Articles » PMID: 25804849

[How Medical Students Perform Academically by Admission Types?]

Overview
Specialty Medical Education
Date 2015 Mar 26
PMID 25804849
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Despite the importance of selecting students whom are capable for medical education and to become a good doctor, not enough studies have been done in the category. This study focused on analysing the medical students' academic performance (grade point average, GPA) differences, flunk and dropout rates by admission types.

Methods: From 2004 to 2010, we gathered 369 Konyang University College of Medicine's students admission data and analyzed the differences between admission method and academic achievement, differences in failure and dropout rates. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), ordinary least square, and logistic regression were used.

Results: The rolling students showed higher academic achievement from year 1 to 3 than regular students (p < 0.01). Using admission type variable as control variable in multiple regression model similar results were shown. But unlike the results of ANOVA, GPA differences by admission types were shown not only in lower academic years but also in year 6 (p < 0.01). From the regression analysis of flunk and dropout rate by admission types, regular admission type students showed higher drop out rate than the rolling ones which demonstrates admission types gives significant effect on flunk or dropout rates in medical students (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: The rolling admissions type students tend to show lower flunk rate and dropout rates and perform better academically. This implies selecting students primarily by Korean College Scholastic Ability Test does not guarantee their academic success in medical education. Thus we suggest a more in-depth comprehensive method of selecting students that are appropriate to individual medical school's educational goal.

Citing Articles

The roles of personal interview and cognitive abilities at admission to medical school in predicting performance of medical students in their internal medicine sub-internship.

Liberty I, Novack L, Hershkovitz R, Katz A BMC Med Educ. 2022; 22(1):541.

PMID: 35831889 PMC: 9281101. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03614-1.


[A school-level longitudinal study of clinical performance examination scores].

Park J Korean J Med Educ. 2015; 27(2):107-16.

PMID: 26044049 PMC: 8813332. DOI: 10.3946/kjme.2015.27.2.107.


[What is the best selection methods of medical freshmen and how to care the students after admission?].

Huh S Korean J Med Educ. 2015; 25(3):185-7.

PMID: 25804847 PMC: 8814478. DOI: 10.3946/kjme.2013.25.3.185.

References
1.
Salvatori P . Reliability and validity of admissions tools used to select students for the health professions. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2001; 6(2):159-75. DOI: 10.1023/a:1011489618208. View

2.
Edwards J, Johnson E, Molidor J . The interview in the admission process. Acad Med. 1990; 65(3):167-77. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199003000-00008. View

3.
Arulampalam W, Naylor R, Smith J . Dropping out of medical school in the UK: explaining the changes over ten years. Med Educ. 2007; 41(4):385-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2007.02710.x. View

4.
Lumsden M, Bore M, Millar K, Jack R, Powis D . Assessment of personal qualities in relation to admission to medical school. Med Educ. 2005; 39(3):258-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02087.x. View

5.
Rhoads J, Gallemore Jr J, Gianturco D, OSTERHOUT S . Motivation, medical school admissions, and student performance. J Med Educ. 1974; 49(12):1119-27. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-197412000-00002. View