ArticleBMJ open2018
Evaluating the validity of the selection measures used for the UK's foundation medical training programme: a national cohort study.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Situational judgement testing at different stages of undergraduate medical training and the risk of professionalism lapses: A cohort study.Medical education · 2026Article
- "Out of the frying pan and into the fire" - the UKFPO's recent changes are a short-sighted response to a complicated problem.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Evidence-based appraisal of situational judgement tests (revisited).Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2024Article
- Evidence-based appraisal of the role of SJTs in selection.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- How do the post-graduation outcomes of students from gateway courses compare to those from standard entry medicine courses at the same medical schools?BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Development and Implementation of Situational Judgment Tests as an Evaluation Method for Training Oncology Physicians: Application in the KOKON-KTO Training.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Differential attainment at MRCS according to gender, ethnicity, age and socioeconomic factors: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Removing Educational Achievement Points From the Foundation Programme Application System: Is This the Right Decision?JMIR medical education · 2021Article
- Dental foundation training in the COVID-19 era - the national recruitment lottery.British dental journal · 2021Article
- Predictors of ophthalmology career success (POCS) study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Virtual Interview, Real Anxiety: Prospective Evaluation of a Focused Teaching Programme on Confidence Levels Among Medical Students Applying for Academic Clinical Posts.Advances in medical education and practice · 2021Article
- A scoping review of admission criteria and selection methods in nursing education.BMC nursing · 2020Article
- '10% of your medical students will cause 90% of your problems': a prospective correlational study.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.BMC medicine · 2020Article
- A comparison of undergraduate outcomes for students from gateway courses and standard entry medicine courses.BMC medical education · 2020Article
- Article
- National recruitment scheme for pre-registration pharmacist training in England and Wales: a mixed method evaluation of experiences of applicant pharmacy students.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- Article
- Relationship between sociodemographic factors and specialty destination of UK trainee doctors: a national cohort study.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCurrently relative performance at medical school (educational performance measure (EPM) decile), additional educational achievements and the score on a situational judgement test (SJT) are used to rank applicants to the UK Foundation Years postgraduate medical training programme. We sought to evaluate whether these three measures were predictive of subsequent successful completion of the programme, and thus were valid selection criteria.
methodsData were obtained from the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) on 14 131 UK applicants to the foundation programme starting in 2013 and 2014. These data included training outcomes in the form of Annual Reviews of Competency Progression (ARCPs), which indicated whether the programme was successfully completed. The relationship between applicants' performance on the three selection measures to the odds of successful programme completion were modelled.
resultsOn univariable analyses, all three measures were associated with the odds of successful completion of the programme. Converting the SJT score to deciles to compare the effect sizes suggested that one decile increase in the EPM increased the odds of completing the programme by approximately 15%, whereas the equivalent value was 8% for the SJT scores. On multivariable analyses (with all three measures included in the model), these effects were only independently and statistically significant for EPM decile (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.18, p<0.001) and SJT z-score decile (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09, p=0.02).
conclusionsThe EPM decile and SJT scores may be effective selection measures for the foundation programme. However, educational achievements does not add value to the other two measures when predicting programme completion. Thus, its usefulness in this context is less clear. Moreover, our findings suggest that the weighting for the EPM decile score, relative to SJT performance, should be increased.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.