Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Wilden (1972)
System and structure
J. Edwards, E. Johnson, J. Molidor (1990)
The interview in the admission processAcademic Medicine, 65
Anderson, Jacobs (2000)
General surgery program directors' perceptions of the match.Current surgery, 57 5
K. Anderson, D. Jacobs, A. Blue (1999)
Is match ethics an oxymoron?American journal of surgery, 177 3
N. Wagoner, G. Gray (1979)
Report on a survey of program directors regarding selection factors in graduate medical education.Journal of medical education, 54 6
J. Teichman, K. Anderson, M. Dorough, C. Stein, S. Optenberg, I. Thompson (2000)
The urology residency matching program in practice.The Journal of urology, 163 6
R. Dawes (1982)
Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making
P. Carek, K. Anderson, A. Blue, B. Mavis (2000)
Recruitment behavior and program directors: how ethical are their perspectives about the match process?Family medicine, 32 4
N. Wagoner, J. Suriano (1992)
Recommendations for changing the residency selection process based on a survey of program directorsAcademic Medicine, 67
N. Wagoner, J. Suriano, J. Stoner (1986)
Factors used by program directors to select residents.Journal of medical education, 61 1
R. Dawes (1979)
The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision makingAmericanPsychologist, 34
H. Gong, N. Parker, F. Apgar, Candace Shank (1984)
Influence of the interview on ranking in the residency selection processMedical Education, 18
M. Gilbart, M. Cusimano, G. Regehr (2001)
Evaluating surgical resident selection procedures.American journal of surgery, 181 3
Purpose: The selection process forresidency positions is sometimes seen as being``opaque'' and unfair by students, and can be asignificant source of student stress. Yetefforts to clarify the process may not havehelped reduce student stress for a number ofreasons. This paper examines the nature of theknowledge that students possess and describesthe implications for future efforts ataddressing this knowledge.Methods: The current study assessedthe perceptions of three groups (selectioncommittee members, faculty advisors, andstudents) at a single institution using twoevaluation methods (ranking of a context-freelist of variables, and an assessment of thelegitimacy of 20 ``common language'' opinionstatements comparing the variables).Results: For the context-freeranking of variables, ICC's were moderatelyhigh for all three groups (0.479–0.584) andthe disattenuated correlations were very high(0.872 to 0.946). By contrast, when morecontextually relevant opinion statements wereevaluated, the ICC's were much morevariable (less than 0 to 0.279), the correlations (where calculable) were lower(0.449 to 0.547), and inconsistencies of opinionregarding particular variables became apparent.Conclusions: To properly understandthe true nature of the opinions that are beingheld by the various groups it is necessary touse statements that reflect the vernacular ofthe ``rumour mills'' that are the common sourceof student information.
Advances in Health Sciences Education – Springer Journals
Published: Jan 14, 2005
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.