2018 Ottawa consensus statement: Selection and recruitment to the healthcare professions

Selection methods used by medical schools should reliably identify whether candidates are likely to be successful in medical training and ultimately become competent clinicians. However, there is little consensus regarding methods that reliably evaluate non-academic attributes, and longitudinal studies examining predictors of success after qualification are insufficient. This systematic review synthesises the extant research evidence on the relative strengths of various selection methods. We offer a research agenda and identify key considerations to inform policy and practice in the next 50 years.

Objective To determine whether the ethnicity of UK trained doctors and medical students is related to their academic performance. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Online databases PubMed, Scopus, and ERIC; Google and Google Scholar; personal knowledge; backwards and forwards citations; specific searches of medical education journals and medical education conference abstracts. Study selection The included quantitative reports measured the performance of medical students or UK trained doctors from different ethnic groups in undergraduate or postgraduate assessments. Exclusions were non-UK assessments, only non-UK trained candidates, only self reported assessment data, only dropouts or another non-academic variable, obvious sampling bias, or insufficient details of ethnicity or outcomes. Results 23 reports comparing the academic performance of medical students and doctors from different ethnic groups were included. Meta-analyses of effects from 22 reports (n=23 742) indicated candidates of “non-white” ethnicity underperformed compared with white candidates (Cohen’s d=−0.42, 95% confidence interval −0.50 to −0.34; P<0.001). Effects in the same direction and of similar magnitude were found in meta-analyses of undergraduate assessments only, postgraduate assessments only, machine marked written assessments only, practical clinical assessments only, assessments with pass/fail outcomes only, assessments with continuous outcomes only, and in a meta-analysis of white v Asian candidates only. Heterogeneity was present in all meta-analyses. Conclusion Ethnic differences in academic performance are widespread across different medical schools, different types of exam, and in undergraduates and postgraduates. They have persisted for many years and cannot be dismissed as atypical or local problems. We need to recognise this as an issue that probably affects all of UK medical and higher education. More detailed information to track the problem as well as further research into its causes is required. Such actions are necessary to ensure a fair and just method of training and of assessing current and future doctors.

Assessment for selection in medicine and the health professions should follow the same quality assurance processes as in-course assessment. The literature on selection is limited and is not strongly theoretical or conceptual. For written testing, there is evidence of the predictive validity of Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) for medical school and licensing examination performance. There is also evidence for the predictive validity of grade point average, particularly in combination with MCAT for graduate entry but little evidence about the predictive validity of school leaver scores. Interviews have not been shown to be robust selection measures. Studies of multiple mini-interviews have indicated good predictive validity and reliability. Of other measures used in selection, only the growing interest in personality testing appears to warrant future work. Widening access to medical and health professional programmes is an increasing priority and relates to the social accountability mandate of medical and health professional schools. While traditional selection measures do discriminate against various population groups, there is little evidence on the effect of non-traditional measures in widening access. Preparation and outreach programmes show most promise. In summary, the areas of consensus for assessment for selection are small in number. Recommendations for future action focus on the adoption of principles of good assessment and curriculum alignment, use of multi-method programmatic approaches, development of interdisciplinary frameworks and utilisation of sophisticated measurement models. The social accountability mandate of medical and health professional schools demands that social inclusion, workforce issues and widening of access are embedded in the principles of good assessment for selection.