Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Focus on Selection Methods: Evidence and Practice

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Clinical Education for the Health Professions

  • 56 Accesses

Abstract

Selection plays an essential role in shaping the future of the healthcare workforce and therefore healthcare delivery. As the selection process is essentially responsible for determining who makes up the healthcare workforce, it is crucial that selection methods and processes are defensible, and that they help shape the healthcare workforce to be more representative of our populations. In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in scholarship on the processes and outcomes of selection that allow for the use of selection methods and processes that are defensible and enable widening access to health professional courses. Much of the focus of this scholarship relates specifically to selection into medical courses and subsequent speciality training, with increasing representation of selection into health professions more broadly. Although the content of this chapter draws mostly on the literature in medical education, the processes and issues discussed apply to selection across a range of health professions and literature relating to other health professions has been included where available.

This chapter is for anyone new to selection in the health professions. It aims to provide insights on the current state of selection discourses, what you need to know about selection, and how to approach selection, providing practical considerations and summarizing the available evidence base on selection methods. The chapter concludes with a review of the future challenges in selection and potential scholarship opportunities for educators interested in this important area of health professions education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alhurishi SA, Aljuraiban GS, Alshaikh FA, Almutairi MM, Almutairi KM. Predictors of students’ academic achievements in allied health professions at King Saud University: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02525-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderton RS. Identifying factors that contribute to academic success in first year allied health and science degrees at an Australian University. Aust J Educ. 2017;61(2):184–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944117713321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Medical Colleges. Enrollment up at US Medical Schools. December 2020. https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/press-releases/enrollment-us-medical-schools. Accessed 27 Mar 2022.

  • Ballejos MP, Rhyne RL, Parkes J. Increasing the relative weight of noncognitive admission criteria improves underrepresented minority admission rates to medical school. Teach Learn Med. 2015;27(2):155–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2015.1011649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boelen C. Adapting health care institutions and medical schools to societies’ needs. Acad Med. 1999;74:S11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boelen C, Heck J. Defining and measuring the social accountability of medical schools. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1995. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/59441. Accessed 18 Nov 2021

    Google Scholar 

  • Boelen C, Pearson D, Kaufman A, Rourke J, Woollard R, Marsh DC, et al. Producing a socially accountable medical school: AMEE guide no. 109. Med Teach. 2016;38(11):1078–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt JC. What can we learn from resident selection interviews? J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7(4):673–5. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-15-00403.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell P. Personality tests in medical student selection. Australas Med J. 2019;12(7):220–1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle M, Sandover S, Poobalan A, Bullen J, Cleland J. Meritocratic and fair? The discourse of UK and Australia’s widening participation policies. Med Educ. 2021;55(7):825–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford C, Black P, Melby V, Fitzpatrick B. An exploration of the predictive validity of selection criteria on progress outcomes for pre-registration nursing programmes – a systematic review. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(17–18):2489–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen MJ, Sackett PR, Lievens, F. Threats to the operational use of situational judgment tests in the college admission process. Intern J Selec and Assess. 2006;14(2):142–155. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5565.

  • Danilovich N, Kitto S, Price DW, Campbell C, Hodgson A, Hendry P. Implementing competency-based medical education in family medicine: a narrative review of current trends in assessment. Fam Med. 2021;53(1):9–22. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2021.453158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dore KL, Roberts C, Wright S. Widening perspectives: reframing the way we research selection. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;22(2):565–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9730-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Reiter HI, Norman GR. An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview. Med Educ. 2004;38(3):314–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva KW, Reiter HI, Trinh K, Wasi P, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. Predictive validity of the multiple mini-interview for selecting medical trainees. Med Educ. 2009;43(8):767–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson E, Lievens F. Future directions in personality, occupational and medical selection: myths, misunderstandings, measurement, and suggestions. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;22(2):387–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding S, Tiffin PA, Greatrix R, Lee AJ, Patterson F, Nicholson S, et al. Do changing medical admissions practices in the UK impact on who is admitted? An interrupted time series analysis. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e023274. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice L, Donald K, de Wet C, Palipana D. Why we should and how we can increase medical school admissions for persons with disabilities. Med J Aust. 2021;215(6):249–251.e1. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foo J, Rivers G, Allen L, Ilic D, Maloney S, Hay M. The economic costs of selecting medical students: an Australian case study. Med Educ. 2020;54(7):643–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrud P. Selecting medical students: we need to assess more than academic excellence. Med J Aust. 2018;208(5):202–3. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja17.01224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girgulis K, Rideout A, Rashid M. Performance of Black and Indigenous applicants in a medical school admissions process. Can Med Ed J [Internet]. 2021 Nov 1 [cited 2021 Nov 23]. Available from: https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cmej/article/view/72121

  • Goffin RD, Christiansen ND. Correcting personality tests for faking: a review of popular personality tests and an initial survey of researchers. Int J Sel Assess. 2003;11(1/2):340–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhill J, Walker J, Playford D. Outcomes of Australian rural clinical schools: a decade of success building the rural medical workforce through the education and training continuum. Rural Remote Health. 2015;15(3):2991. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH2991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin B, Porfeli E, Hu W. Who do you think you are? Medical student socioeconomic status and intention to work in underserved areas. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2016;22(2):491–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9726-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haavisto E, Hupil M, Hahtela N, Heikkila A, Huovila P, Moisio E-L, et al. Structure and content of a new entrance exam to select undergraduate nursing students. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2019;16(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijnes-2018-0008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay M, Mercer AM, Lichtwark I, Hodgson WC, Aretz HT, Armstrong EG, et al. Selecting for a sustainable workforce to meet the future healthcare needs of rural communities in Australia. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017a;22(2):533–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9727-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay M, Lichtwark I, Metcalf J, Henry S. The influence of first language, gender and age on situational judgement test (SJT) scores in nursing interns. In: Research presentation. AMEE conference, innovating in education, 26–30 August, Helsinki. 2017b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel-Waszak A, Brouwer B, Schönefeld E, Ahrens H, Hertel G, Marschall B. Medical doctors’ job specification analysis: a qualitative inquiry. GMS. J Med Educ. 2017;34(4):Doc43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmeister M, Lockyer J, Crutcher R. The multiple mini-interview for selection of international medical graduates into family medicine residency education. Med Educ. 2009;43(6):573–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudak RP, Brooke PP Jr, Finstuen K. Identifying management competencies for health care executives: review of a series of Delphi studies. J Health Adm Educ. 2000;18(2):213–43. Discussion 244–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale S, Kamble MW, Spalding N. Predictive validity of multiple mini interview scores for future academic and clinical placement performance in physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy programmes. Int J Ther Rehabil. 2020;27(4):1–13. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2018.0149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiter CD, Axelson RD. A perspective on medical school admission research and practice over the last 25 years. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(Suppl 1):S50–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2013.842910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kudlas MJ. Effects of radiography program admissions practices on student retention. J Allied Health. 2006;35(3):162–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuncel NR, Kochevar RJ, Ones DS. A meta-analysis of letters of recommendation in college and graduate admissions: reasons for hope. Int J Sel Assess. 2014;22(1):101–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemay EP, Clark MS, Feeney, BC. Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationship. J Personality and Soc Psych. 2007;92(5):834–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.834.

  • Lewkonia RM. The missions of medical schools: the pursuit of health in the service of society. BMC Med Educ. 2001;1:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-1-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lievens F, Peeters H, Schollaert E. Situational judgment tests: a review of recent research. Pers Rev. 2008;37(4):426–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lievens F, Patterson F. The validity and incremental validity of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simulations for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes selection. J Appl Psych. 2011;96(5):927–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023496.

  • Lievens F, Sackett PR. The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via situational judgment tests for predicting academic success and job performance. J Appl Psych. 2012;97(2):460–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025741.

  • Lievens F, Patterson F, Corstjens J, Martin S, Nicholson S. Widening access in selection using situational judgement tests: evidence from the UKCAT. Med Educ. 2016;50(6):624–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13060.

  • Maan ZN, Maan IN, Darzi AW, Aggarwal R. Systematic review of predictors of surgical performance. Br J Surg. 2012;99(12):1610–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie RK, Dowell J, Ayansina D, Cleland JA. Do personality traits assessed on medical school admission predict exit performance? A UK-wide longitudinal cohort study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;22(2):365–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto M, Inoue K, Kajii E. Characteristics of medical students with rural origin: implications for selective admission policies. Health Policy. 2008;87(2):194–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel MA, Hartman NS, Whetzel DL, Grubb WL. Situational Judgement tests, response instructions, and validity: a meta-analysis. Person Psych. 2007;60(1):63–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00065.x.

  • McManus IC, Dewberry C, Nicholson S, Dowell JS. The UKCAT-12 study: educational attainment, aptitude test performance, demographic and socio-economic contextual factors as predictors of first year outcome in a cross-sectional collaborative study of 12 UK medical schools. BMC Med. 2013;11:244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medical Schools Council. Selecting for excellence final report. Medical Schools Council. 2014. https://www.medschools.ac.uk/media/1203/selecting-for-excellence-final-report.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2021.

  • Medical Schools Council. The expansion of medical student numbers in the United Kingdom. October 2021. https://www.medschools.ac.uk/our-work/the-expansion-of-medical-student-numbers. Accessed 27 Mar 2022.

  • Medical Training Review Panel (MTRP) 18th Report. Australian Government Department of Health. Commonwealth of Australia. ISBN (print): 978-1-76007-162-2. 2015. Retrieved 29 June 2015, from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/work-pubs-mtrp-18

  • Mercer A, Puddey IB. Admission selection criteria as predictors of outcomes in an undergraduate medical course: a prospective study. Med Teach. 2011;33(12):997–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer A, Hay M, Hodgson WC, Canny BJ, Puddey IB. The relative predictive value of undergraduate versus graduate selection tools in two Australian medical schools. Med Teach. 2018;40(11):1183–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1426839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian O, Hogenbirk JC, Marsh DC, Prowse O, Cain M, Warry W. Tracking Indigenous applicants through the admissions process of a socially accountable medical school. Acad Med. 2019;94(8):1211–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison J. Selecting for medical education. Med Educ. 2016;50(1):3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien A, Harvey J, Shannon M, Lewis K, Valencia O. A comparison of multiple mini-interviews and structured interviews in a UK setting. Med Teach. 2011;33(5):397–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell MS, Hartman NS, McDaniel MA, Grubb WL, Lawrence A. Incremental validity of situational judgment tests for task and contextual job performance. Intern J Selec and Assess. 2007;15(1):19–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00364.x.

  • Patterson BF, Mattern KD. Validity of the SAT for predicting first-year grades: 2009 SAT validity sample. Statistical report no. 2012-2. 2009; College Board. ERIC Number ED563103. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED563103. Accessed 24 Nov 2021.

  • Patterson F, Zibarras L. Selection and recruitment in the healthcare professions research, theory and practice. 1st ed. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson F, Ferguson E, Thomas S. Using job analysis to identify core and specific competencies: implications for selection and recruitment. Med Educ. 2008;42(12):1195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson F, Ashworth V, Zibarras L, Coan P, Kerrin M, O’Neill P. Evaluations of situational judgement tests to assess non-academic attributes in selection. Med Educ. 2012;46(9):850–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson F, Ashworth V, Kerrin M, O’Neill P. Situational judgement tests represent a measurement method and can be designed to minimise coaching effects. Med Educ. 2013;47(2):220–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson F, Ferguson E, Knight AL. Selection into medical education and training. In: Swanwick T, editor. Understanding medical education: evidence, theory and practice. Chichester: Wiley; 2014. p. 403–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson F, Knight A, Dowell J, Nicholson S, Cousans F, Cleland J. How effective are selection methods in medical education? A systematic review. Med Educ. 2016a;50(1):36–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson F, Zibarras L, Ashworth V. Situational judgement tests in medical education and training: research, theory and practice: AMEE guide no. 100. Med Teach. 2016b;38(1):3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson F, Cleland J, Cousans F. Selection methods in healthcare professions: where are we now and where next? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2017;22(2):229–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-017-9752-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson F, Roberts C, Hanson MD, Hampe W, Eva K, Ponnamperuma G, et al. Ottawa consensus statement: selection and recruitment to the healthcare professions. Med Tech. 2018;40(11):1091–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1498589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson F, Ferguson E, Zibarras L. Selection into medical education and training. In: Swanwick T, Forrest K, O’Brien BC, editors. Understanding medical education: evidence, theory, and practice. 3rd ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. p. 375–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pau A, Jeevaratnam K, Chen YS, Fall AA, Khoo C, Nadarajah VD. The Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) for student selection in health professions training – a systematic review. Med Teach. 2013;35(12):1027–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paynter S, Illes R, Hay M. An investigation of the predictive validity of selection tools on performance in physiotherapy training in Australia. Physiotherapy. 2022;114:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1010/j.physio.2021.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ployhart RE, Holtz BC. The diversity-validity dilemma: strategies for reducing racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact in selection. Person Psych. 2008;61(1):153–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00109.x.

  • Pollard S, Cooper-Thomas H. Best practice recommendations for situational judgment tests. Austral J Org Psych. 2015;8(e70). https://doi.org/10.1017/orp.2015.6.

  • Powis D, Bore M, Munro D, Lumsden MA. Development of the personal qualities assessment as a tool for selecting medical students. J Adult Contin Educ. 2005;11(1):3–14. https://doi.org/10.7227/JACE.11.1.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powis D, Munro D, Bore M, Burstal A. In-course and career outcomes predicted by medical school selection procedures based on personal qualities. Med Teach. 2020;42(8):944–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1747605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powis D, Munro D, Miles Bore M, Eley D. Why is it so hard to consider personal qualities when selecting medical students? Med Teach. 2020b;42(4):366–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1703919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prideaux D, Roberts C, Eva K, Centeno A, McCrorie P, McManus C, et al. Assessment for selection for the health care professions and specialty training: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):215–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddey IB, Mercer A. Predicting academic outcomes in an Australian graduate entry medical programme. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-31.

  • Puddey IB, Mercer A, Playford DE, Pougnault S, Riley GJ. Medical student selection criteria as predictors of intended rural practice following graduation. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:218. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddey IB, Playford DE, Mercer A. Impact of medical student origins on the likelihood of ultimately practicing in areas of low vs high socio-economic status. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0842-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razack S. “Meritocracy” and “fairness” in medical student selection: comparing UK and Australia. Med Educ. 2021;55(7):772–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razack S, Hodges B, Steinert Y, Maguire M. Seeking inclusion in an exclusive process: discourses of medical school student selection. Med Educ. 2015;49(1):36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees EK, Hawarden AW, Dent G, Hays R, Bates J, Hassell AB. Evidence regarding the utility of multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs: a BEME systematic review: BEME guide no. 37. Med Tech. 2016;38(5):443–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigby PG, Gururaja RP. World medical schools: the sum also rises. JRSM Open. 2017;8(6):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2054270417698631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera L. Hiring as cultural matching: the case of elite professional service firms. Am Sociol Rev. 2012;77(6):999–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C, Walton M, Rothnie I, Crossley J, Lyon P, Kumar K, et al. Factors affecting the utility of the multiple mini-interview in selecting candidates for graduate-entry medical school. Med Educ. 2008;42(4):396–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C, Khanna P, Rigby L, Bartle E, Llewellyn A, Gustavs J, et al. Utility of selection methods for specialist medical training: a BEME (best evidence medical education) systematic review: BEME guide no. 45. Med Teach. 2018;40(1):3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1367375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstein AH, O’Daniel M. A survey of the impact of disruptive behaviors and communication defects on patient safety. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34(8):464–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(08)34058-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell S, Murley G, Oates M, Li X, Raspovic A. Does the Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank score (ATAR) predict academic performance in a podiatry course? Focus Health Prof Educ. 2021;22(1):68–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreurs S, Cleutjens KBJM, Cleland J, Oude Egbrink MGA. Outcomes-based selection into medical school: predicting excellence in multiple competencies during the clinical years. Acad Med. 2020;95(9):1411–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003279. PMID: 32134790; PMCID: PMC7447174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schripsema NR, van Trigt AM, van der Wal MA, Cohen-Schotanus J. How different medical school selection processes call upon different personality characteristics. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0150645. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sladek RM, King SM. From pipedream to possibility: developing an equity target for refugees to study medicine in Australia. In: Sengupta E, Blessinger P, editors. Strategies, policies and directions for refugee education. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2018. p. 249–61.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stemig MS, Sackett PR, Lievens F. Effects of organizationally endorsed coaching on performance and validity of situational judgment tests. Int J Sel Assess. 2015;23(2):174–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesson G, Curran V, Pong R, Strasser R. Advances in rural medical education in three countries: Canada, the United States and Australia. Educ Health. 2005;18(3):405–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576280500289728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Till H, Myford C, Dowell J. Improving student selection using multiple mini-interviews with multifaceted Rasch modeling. Acad Med. 2013;88(2):216–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster ES, Paton LW, Crampton PES, Tiffin PA. Situational judgement test validity for selection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ. 2020;54(10):888–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White J, Brownell K, Lemay JF, Lockyer JM. “What do they want me to say?” The hidden curriculum at work in the medical school selection process: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods SA, Barratt J. Personality assessment in healthcare and implications for selection. In: Patterson F, Zibarras L, editors. Selection and recruitment in healthcare professions. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. p. 51–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S. Medical school personal statements: a measure of motivation or proxy for cultural privilege? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2015;20(3):627–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-014-9550-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME, Razack S, Hanson MD, Slade S, Varpio L, Dore KL, et al. Calling for a broader conceptualization of diversity. Acad Med. 2012;87(11):501–1510. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31826daf74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash Centre for Professional Development and Monash Online Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Louise Allen

  2. Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Catherine Green

  3. Faculty of Education, Monash Centre for Professional Development and Monash Online Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Margaret Hay

Authors
  1. Louise Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Margaret Hay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Allen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Debra Nestel

  2. King's College London, London, UK

    Gabriel Reedy

  3. School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia

    Lisa McKenna

  4. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

    Suzanne Gough

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Allen, L., Green, C., Hay, M. (2022). Focus on Selection Methods: Evidence and Practice. In: Nestel, D., Reedy, G., McKenna, L., Gough, S. (eds) Clinical Education for the Health Professions. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6106-7_122-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6106-7_122-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6106-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6106-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation