Do Conscientiousness Levels Predict Later Clinical Performance of Medical Students?
20 years ago, a study reported that medical “students who failed to bring passport photographs as requested on induction were significantly more likely to fail second-year exams” (48% vs. 8%). Would it be only a coincidence happened 20 years ago or does the current data support it?
The answer is on the video! Or you may to read, slide the page down.
Hi and hola para amigos,
Twenty years ago, a study reported that medical “students who failed to bring passport photographs as requested on induction were significantly more likely to fail second-year exams” (48% vs. 8%). What made some students to act timely as a response to that request while the other students did not follow the deadline. The key factor would be conscientiousness. It is defined as “the quality of working hard and being careful”. But is it such a big important factor on success? Would it be only a coincidence happened 20 years ago or does the current data support it?
Researchers from UK conducted a prospective correlational study by using thirteen years of data obtained from more than eight hundred first and second year medical students. The aim was to explore if there is a relationship between conscientiousness and later clinical performance.
The flamingo is ready to present this interesting study.
The aim was to see if conscientiousness index, let me call it CI because it’s a difficult word to pronounce as a non-native speaker like me, to see if CI scores of the first year and second year medical students have correlation with their later performance in medical school and in early practice.
First, I need to provide a brief explanation about how CI score was calculated.
The CI index included:
· “having brought required ‘induction’ information (photographs, criminal records information and immunisation status),
· attendance at compulsory sessions (unless a good reason had been notified),
· submission of assignments on time,
· fulfilling essential administrative requirements (such as attending base unit allocation meetings)
· and completion of course evaluations”.
As you can notice, all of them are solid observational data, not have a self-reported nature.
The aim was to explore the relationship between CI scores and later performance. So, how their later performance was calculated?
By using four solid data sources:
· The situational judgement test, which has “the content domains such as coping with pressure, working effectively as part of a team, effective communication, problem solving and commitment to professionalism”.
· The Educational Performance Measure, which shows students’ “academic performance over the first 4 years of their undergraduate medical programme”.
· Prescribing Safety Assessment which is a written test on prescribing accuracy taken by final-year medical students.
· Annual Review of Competence Progression which reveals “judgement of a panel of experts on the readiness of trainee doctors to progress to the next level of training”.
Do you think CI scores correlate with these performance data?
Let’s see what the study find.
Linear regression analysis showed that CI scores significantly correlate with undergraduate and postgraduate performance variables considering the situational judgement test scores, the educational performance measure, prescribing safety assessment scores, and the scores in annual review of competence progression.
So it means that CI scores in the first two years of medical school have predictive value for later performance.
Ok, great, it’s predictive. So what? What can we use that for?
For example, it may help us to provide remediation for these students with low CI scores before they fail by identifying them earlier. It could help us for targeted remediation. So that’s an important use case.
If you want to read more, the link to the article at the description below the video: https://youtu.be/kXbw98hEK9M
See you and adios para amigos.
And also, don’t forget the flamingo!
Follow the Flamingo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MedEdFlamingo
