Display options
Cite
Kelly ME, Gallagher N, Dunne FP, et al. Views of doctors of varying disciplines on HPAT-Ireland as a selection tool for medicine. Med Teach. 2014;36(9):775-82doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.909012.
Kelly, M. E., Gallagher, N., Dunne, F. P., & Murphy, A. W. (2014). Views of doctors of varying disciplines on HPAT-Ireland as a selection tool for medicine. Medical teacher, 36(9), 775-82. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.909012
Kelly, Maureen E, et al. "Views of doctors of varying disciplines on HPAT-Ireland as a selection tool for medicine." Medical teacher vol. 36,9 (2014): 775-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.909012
Kelly ME, Gallagher N, Dunne FP, Murphy AW. Views of doctors of varying disciplines on HPAT-Ireland as a selection tool for medicine. Med Teach. 2014 Sep;36(9):775-82. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.909012. Epub 2014 May 07. PMID: 24804920.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Med Teach. 2014 Sep;36(9):775-82. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.909012. Epub 2014 May 07.

Views of doctors of varying disciplines on HPAT-Ireland as a selection tool for medicine.

Medical teacher

Maureen E Kelly, Niamh Gallagher, Fidelma P Dunne, Andrew W Murphy

Affiliations

  1. National University of Ireland , Ireland and.

PMID: 24804920 DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.909012

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Selection tools for medicine must achieve political validity and enjoy stakeholder acceptability. This qualitative study aimed to establish the perspectives of doctors, from various clinical specialities, on HPAT-Ireland, a new selection tool for undergraduate medical students.

METHODS: Fifteen doctors participated over three iterative cycles of recruitment, interviewing and analysis. Prior to interview, participants sat a practice HPAT-Ireland test. HPAT-Ireland has three sections: (1) Logical reasoning/problem solving; (2) Interpersonal understanding and (3): Non-verbal reasoning.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: Three themes emerged: job relatedness; utility of HPAT-Ireland and diversity. Sections 1 and 2 were considered very job related however Section 3 was widely criticised for lacking clinical relevance. Doctors did not think that the test would reliably predict future performance. However, one-third felt it was acceptable as a selection tool in conjunction with academic record. Those who found it unacceptable were influenced by its perceived narrow focus, limited job relatedness, potential for socioeconomic bias, impact on gender and potential for negative influence on student diversity.

CONCLUSIONS: A selection tool that does not enjoy the confidence of the medical profession is unlikely to achieve political validity and may ultimately fail, regardless of other objective measures of its effectiveness such as predictive validity.

MeSH terms

Publication Types