Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36894198›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2023

Differential attainment in specialty training recruitment in the UK: an observational analysis of the impact of psychometric testing assessment in Public Health postgraduate selection.

Richard J Pinder, Fran Bury, Ganesh Sathyamoorthy, Azeem Majeed, Mala Rao

Full text readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Richard J PinderDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK richard.pinder@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7010-6009
Fran BuryDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6305-1994
Ganesh SathyamoorthyDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Azeem MajeedDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2357-9858
Mala RaoDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5504-6303

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine how current psychometric testing approaches used in selection of postgraduate training in UK Public Health are associated with socioeconomic and sociocultural background of applicants (including ethnicity).

designObservational study using contemporaneous data collected during recruitment and psychometric test scores.

settingAssessment centre of UK national Public Health recruitment for postgraduate Public Health training. The assessment centre element of selection comprises three psychometric assessments: Rust Advanced Numerical Reasoning, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Assessment II and Public Health situational judgement test.

participants629 applicants completed the assessment centre in 2021. 219 (34.8%) were UK medical graduates, 73 (116%) were international medical graduates and 337 (53.6%) were from backgrounds other than medicine.

main outcome measureMultivariable-adjusted progression statistics in the form of adjusted OR (aOR), accounting for age, sex, ethnicity, professional background and surrogate measures of familial socioeconomic and sociocultural status.

results357 (56.8%) candidates passed all three psychometric tests. Candidate characteristics negatively associated with progression were black ethnicity (aOR 0.19, 0.08 to 0.44), Asian ethnicity (aOR 0.35, 0.16 to 0.71) and coming from a non-UK medical graduate background (aOR 0.05, 0.03 to 0.12); similar differential attainment was observed in each of the psychometric tests. Even within the UK-trained medical cohort, candidates from white British backgrounds were more likely to progress than those from ethnic minorities (89.2% vs 75.0%, p=0.003).

conclusionAlthough perceived to mitigate the risks of conscious and unconscious bias in selection to medical postgraduate training, these psychometric tests demonstrate unexplained variation that suggests differential attainment. Other specialties should enhance their data collection to evaluate the impact of differential attainment on current selection processes and take forward opportunities to mitigate differential attainment where possible.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementPublic HealthEthnicityHumansPsychometricsUnited KingdomHealth policyHuman resource managementPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID36894198
PMCPMC10008157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read45
identifiers read1
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.