Skip to main content

Testing for medical school selection: What are prospective doctors’ experiences and perceptions of the GAMSAT and what are the consequences of testing?

A Correction to this article was published on 12 February 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Written tests for selection into medicine have demonstrated reliability and there is accumulating evidence regarding their validity, but we know little about the broader impacts or consequences of medical school selection tests from the perspectives of key stakeholders. In this first Australian study of its kind, we use consequential validity as a theoretical lens to examine how medical school students and applicants view and experience the Graduate Medical Schools Admission Test (GAMSAT), and the consequences of testing. Participants (n = 447) were recruited from five graduate-entry medical schools across Australia and a publicly available online test preparation forum. An online survey was used to gather demographic information, and quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data were analysed via descriptive statistics and qualitative data were thematically analysed. The findings showed there was a considerable financial burden associated with preparing for and sitting the GAMSAT and moderate agreement regarding the GAMSAT as a fair selection method. The main unintended consequences of using the GAMSAT as a selection tool included barriers related to test affordability and language, and socialisation into the hidden curriculum of medicine. Selection tools such as the GAMSAT have some limitations when the goals are to support equitable participation in medicine and professional identity development. Our study highlights the value interpretive and theoretically-informed research in contributing to the evidence base on medical school selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

  • 12 February 2018

    The wrong acknowledgement and funding information were provided in the original publication.

References

  • Anderson, N. (2001). Towards a theory of socialization impact: Selection as pre-entry socialization. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2017). Graduate medical school admissions testInformation booklet 2017. Retrieved January 3, 2017 from https://gamsat.acer.edu.au/files/GAMSAT_Information_Booklet.pdf.

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, J. A., Nicholson, S., Kelly, N., & Moffat, M. (2015). Taking context seriously: Explaining widening access policy enactments in UK medical schools. Medical Education, 49(1), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, H. (2008). Establishing the criterion validity of the Graduate Medical School Admissions Test (GAMSAT). Medical Education, 42, 999–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). The Nature of enquiry: Setting the field, 7th ed., Chapter 1. In Research methods in education (pp. 3–30). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

  • Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Ginsburg, S., & Hatala, R. (2015). A contemporary approach to validity arguments: A practical guide to Kane’s framework. Medical Education, 49, 560–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, D. A., & Lineberry, M. (2016). Consequences validity evidence: Evaluating the impact of educational assessments. Academic Medicine, 91, 785–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulehan, J., & Williams, P. C. (2001). Vanquishing virtue: The impact of medical education. Academic Medicine, 76, 598–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, D., Perry, W., & Poole, P. (2012). Students’ perceptions of the undergraduate medicine and health sciences admissions test (UMAT). NZ Medical Journal, 125, 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly, R. (2006). Graduate entry medicine in the UK: GAMSAT-based selection and learning outcomes. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Aptitude Tests for Admission to Medical School, 1–4 March 2006, Tokyo, Japan.

  • Dore, K. L., Roberts, C., & Wright, S. (2017). Widening perspectives: reframing The way we research selection. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22, 565–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, B., Carless, S., & Wilson, I. (2013). The effect of commercial coaching on selection test performance. Medical Teacher, 35, 295–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, M. A., Gordon, J., & Ryan, G. (2007). Entry tests for graduate medical programs: Is it time to re-think? Medical Journal of Australia, 186, 120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafferty, F. W., & Franks, R. (1994). The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the structure of medical education. Academic Medicine, 69, 861–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausknecht, J. P., Halpert, J. A., Di Paolo, N. T., & Moriarty Gerrard, M. O. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsheger, U. R., & Anderson, N. (2009). Applicant perspectives in selection: Going beyond preference reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17, 335–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 775–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulasegaram, K. (2017). Use and ornament: Expanding validity evidence in admissions. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22, 553–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, A., Crotty, B., Alldridge, L., Le, L., & Vele, V. (2015). GAMSAT: A 10-year retrospective overview, with detailed analysis of candidates’ performance in 2014. BMC Medical Education, 15, 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (2000). Consequences of test interpretation and use: The fusion of validity and values in psychological assessment. In Problems and solutions in human assessment (pp. 3–20). Boston: Springer.

  • Michaelides, M. P. (2014). Validity considerations ensuing from examinees’ perceptions about high-stakes national examinations in Cyprus. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21, 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, F., Cleland, J., & Cousans, F. (2017). Selection methods in healthcare professions: Where are we now and where next? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 22, 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, F., Knight, A., Dowell, J., Nicholson, S., Cousans, F., & Cleland, J. (2016). How effective are selection methods in medical education? A systematic review. Medical Education, 50, 36–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, F., Lievens, F., Kerrin, M., Zibarras, L., & Carette, B. (2012). Designing Selection Systems for Medicine: The importance of balancing predictive and political validity in high-stakes selection contexts. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 486–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puddey, I. B., & Mercer, A. (2014). Predicting academic outcomes in an Australian graduate entry medical programme. BMC Medical Education, 14, 31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razack, S., Hodges, B., Steinert, Y., & Maguire, M. (2015). Seeking inclusion in an exclusive process: Discourses of medical school student selection. Medical Education, 49, 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C., & Prideaux, D. (2010). Selection for medical schools: Re-imaging as an international discourse. Medical Education, 44, 1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selecting for Excellence Executive Group. (2014). Selecting for Excellence Final Report. Retrieved December 17, 2016 from http://www.medschools.ac.uk/AboutUs/Projects/Widening-Participation/Selecting-for-Excellence/Pages/Selecting-for-Excellence.aspx.

  • Sladek, R. M., Bond, M. J., Frost, L. K., & Prior, K. N. (2016). Predicting success in medical school: A longitudinal study of common Australian student selection tools. BMC Medical Education, 16, 187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steven, K., Dowell, J., Jackson, C., & Guthrie, B. (2016). Fair access to medicine? Retrospective analysis of UK medical schools application data 2009–2012 using three measures of socioeconomic status. BMC Medical Education, 16, 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidman, J. C., Twale, D. J., & Stein, E. L. (2001). Socialization of graduate and professional students in higher education: A perilous passage? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, Number 3. Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Publishers, Inc.

  • White, J., Brownell, K., Lemay, J. F., & Lockyer, J. M. (2012). “What do they want me to say?” The hidden curriculum at work in the medical school selection process: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 12, 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, D., Zhang, J., Byrne, G. J., Luke, H., Ozolins, I. Z., Parker, M. H., et al. (2008). Medical school selection criteria and the prediction of academic performance. Medical Journal of Australia, 189, 235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winegarden, B., Glaser, D., Schwartz, A., & Kelly, C. (2012). MCAT Verbal Reasoning score: Less predictive of medical school performance for English language learners. Medical Education, 46, 878–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) for funding this research.

Funding

The Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) funded this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, K., Roberts, C., Bartle, E. et al. Testing for medical school selection: What are prospective doctors’ experiences and perceptions of the GAMSAT and what are the consequences of testing?. Adv in Health Sci Educ 23, 533–546 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9811-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-018-9811-8

Keywords

  • Medical school selection
  • Written tests
  • GAMSAT
  • Consequential validity
  • Qualitative