Self-reported Disadvantage in Medical School Admissions: A Call to Review, Revise, and Further Advance Holistic Review
This study examined how applicants interpret the self-reported disadvantaged (SRD) question in the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) application. data from 129,262 applicants who applied through AMCAS from 2017 through 2019 were used, including financial and family history, demogr...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Academic Medicine 2023-09, Vol.98 (9), p.1044-1052 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1052 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1044 |
container_title | Academic Medicine |
container_volume | 98 |
creator | Harrison, Leila E Fletcher, Laura Dunleavy, Dana Price-Johnson, Tanisha Kundu, Roopal Vashi Fogerty, Glen T Berardi-Demo, Linda |
description | This study examined how applicants interpret the self-reported disadvantaged (SRD) question in the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) application.
data from 129,262 applicants who applied through AMCAS from 2017 through 2019 were used, including financial and family history, demographic characteristics, and work status and residence. Fifteen applicants from the 2020 and 2021 AMCAS cycles were interviewed about their experiences with the SRD question.
Large effects were found for SRD applicants with fee assistance waivers (h = 0.89), Pell grants (h = 1.21), state or federal aid (h = 1.10), and parents with less education (h = 0.98) and non-SRD applicants with a large proportion of their education paid by family (d =1.03). Another large difference was found for reported family income distribution (73% of SRD applicants reporting family income < $50,000 vs 15% of non-SRD applicants). More SRD applicants were Black or Hispanic (26% vs 16% and 5% vs 5%), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients (11% vs 2%), born outside the United States (32% vs 16%), and raised in a medically underserved area (60% vs 14%). There was a moderate effect for first-generation to college SRD applicants (h = 0.61). SRD applicants had lower Medical College Admission Test scores (d = 0.62) and overall and science grade point averages (d = 0.50 and 0.49, respectively) but no meaningful differences in acceptance or matriculation rates. The interviews identified 5 themes: (1) unclear disadvantage definition; (2) different perceptions of disadvantage and overcoming challenges or obstacles; (3) identification as disadvantaged or not; (4) SRD essay content; and (5) concerns about lack of transparency in how the SRD question is used in admissions.
Revising the SRD question by including context, phrasing, and instructions on broader categories of experiences might be beneficial because of lack of transparency and understanding. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005272 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2820015762</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2820015762</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3988-25b9ad6f2c2c91239e7235faa8f20408741de0b5cb34947b2c14fa96d5b1461c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkEtP3DAUha2qVaG0_6CqvOyCgJ-J3d1oeFUCIUGR2EWOfdMx9cSDncyo_74GpoDw5npxznfvOQh9peSAEt0czuYXB-TVk6xh79Au1VxViqjb9-VPBKmYEPUO-pTzXRHVjeQf0Q5vGGeNrHfR-hpCXyVYxTSCw0c-G7c2w2h-A_YDvgDnrQn42i5iDHjmlj5nH4f8A8_w3ISAx4ivYO1hs_84M-xjMzh8MqVxAak4Cs0CPovB59Hbrfgz-tCbkOHLdu6hm5PjX_Oz6vzy9Od8dl5ZrpWqmOy0cXXPLLOaMq6hHC57Y1TPSjbVCOqAdNJ2XGjRdMxS0RtdO9lRUVPL99D3J-4qxfsJ8tiWABZCMAPEKbdMMUKobGpWpOJJalPMOUHfrpJfmvS3paR9aLwtjbdvGy-2b9sNU7cE92z6X_ELdxPDCCn_CdMGUrsAE8bFI4-qElXrLbUiREjF_wE04Yqj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2820015762</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Self-reported Disadvantage in Medical School Admissions: A Call to Review, Revise, and Further Advance Holistic Review</title><source>Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Harrison, Leila E ; Fletcher, Laura ; Dunleavy, Dana ; Price-Johnson, Tanisha ; Kundu, Roopal Vashi ; Fogerty, Glen T ; Berardi-Demo, Linda</creator><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Leila E ; Fletcher, Laura ; Dunleavy, Dana ; Price-Johnson, Tanisha ; Kundu, Roopal Vashi ; Fogerty, Glen T ; Berardi-Demo, Linda</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined how applicants interpret the self-reported disadvantaged (SRD) question in the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) application.
data from 129,262 applicants who applied through AMCAS from 2017 through 2019 were used, including financial and family history, demographic characteristics, and work status and residence. Fifteen applicants from the 2020 and 2021 AMCAS cycles were interviewed about their experiences with the SRD question.
Large effects were found for SRD applicants with fee assistance waivers (h = 0.89), Pell grants (h = 1.21), state or federal aid (h = 1.10), and parents with less education (h = 0.98) and non-SRD applicants with a large proportion of their education paid by family (d =1.03). Another large difference was found for reported family income distribution (73% of SRD applicants reporting family income < $50,000 vs 15% of non-SRD applicants). More SRD applicants were Black or Hispanic (26% vs 16% and 5% vs 5%), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients (11% vs 2%), born outside the United States (32% vs 16%), and raised in a medically underserved area (60% vs 14%). There was a moderate effect for first-generation to college SRD applicants (h = 0.61). SRD applicants had lower Medical College Admission Test scores (d = 0.62) and overall and science grade point averages (d = 0.50 and 0.49, respectively) but no meaningful differences in acceptance or matriculation rates. The interviews identified 5 themes: (1) unclear disadvantage definition; (2) different perceptions of disadvantage and overcoming challenges or obstacles; (3) identification as disadvantaged or not; (4) SRD essay content; and (5) concerns about lack of transparency in how the SRD question is used in admissions.
Revising the SRD question by including context, phrasing, and instructions on broader categories of experiences might be beneficial because of lack of transparency and understanding.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-2446</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-808X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005272</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37232756</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</publisher><ispartof>Academic Medicine, 2023-09, Vol.98 (9), p.1044-1052</ispartof><rights>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3988-25b9ad6f2c2c91239e7235faa8f20408741de0b5cb34947b2c14fa96d5b1461c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3988-25b9ad6f2c2c91239e7235faa8f20408741de0b5cb34947b2c14fa96d5b1461c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&NEWS=n&CSC=Y&PAGE=fulltext&D=ovft&AN=00001888-990000000-00458$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwolterskluwer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4595,27901,27902,65206</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37232756$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Leila E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunleavy, Dana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price-Johnson, Tanisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kundu, Roopal Vashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fogerty, Glen T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berardi-Demo, Linda</creatorcontrib><title>Self-reported Disadvantage in Medical School Admissions: A Call to Review, Revise, and Further Advance Holistic Review</title><title>Academic Medicine</title><addtitle>Acad Med</addtitle><description>This study examined how applicants interpret the self-reported disadvantaged (SRD) question in the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) application.
data from 129,262 applicants who applied through AMCAS from 2017 through 2019 were used, including financial and family history, demographic characteristics, and work status and residence. Fifteen applicants from the 2020 and 2021 AMCAS cycles were interviewed about their experiences with the SRD question.
Large effects were found for SRD applicants with fee assistance waivers (h = 0.89), Pell grants (h = 1.21), state or federal aid (h = 1.10), and parents with less education (h = 0.98) and non-SRD applicants with a large proportion of their education paid by family (d =1.03). Another large difference was found for reported family income distribution (73% of SRD applicants reporting family income < $50,000 vs 15% of non-SRD applicants). More SRD applicants were Black or Hispanic (26% vs 16% and 5% vs 5%), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients (11% vs 2%), born outside the United States (32% vs 16%), and raised in a medically underserved area (60% vs 14%). There was a moderate effect for first-generation to college SRD applicants (h = 0.61). SRD applicants had lower Medical College Admission Test scores (d = 0.62) and overall and science grade point averages (d = 0.50 and 0.49, respectively) but no meaningful differences in acceptance or matriculation rates. The interviews identified 5 themes: (1) unclear disadvantage definition; (2) different perceptions of disadvantage and overcoming challenges or obstacles; (3) identification as disadvantaged or not; (4) SRD essay content; and (5) concerns about lack of transparency in how the SRD question is used in admissions.
Revising the SRD question by including context, phrasing, and instructions on broader categories of experiences might be beneficial because of lack of transparency and understanding.</description><issn>1040-2446</issn><issn>1938-808X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdkEtP3DAUha2qVaG0_6CqvOyCgJ-J3d1oeFUCIUGR2EWOfdMx9cSDncyo_74GpoDw5npxznfvOQh9peSAEt0czuYXB-TVk6xh79Au1VxViqjb9-VPBKmYEPUO-pTzXRHVjeQf0Q5vGGeNrHfR-hpCXyVYxTSCw0c-G7c2w2h-A_YDvgDnrQn42i5iDHjmlj5nH4f8A8_w3ISAx4ivYO1hs_84M-xjMzh8MqVxAak4Cs0CPovB59Hbrfgz-tCbkOHLdu6hm5PjX_Oz6vzy9Od8dl5ZrpWqmOy0cXXPLLOaMq6hHC57Y1TPSjbVCOqAdNJ2XGjRdMxS0RtdO9lRUVPL99D3J-4qxfsJ8tiWABZCMAPEKbdMMUKobGpWpOJJalPMOUHfrpJfmvS3paR9aLwtjbdvGy-2b9sNU7cE92z6X_ELdxPDCCn_CdMGUrsAE8bFI4-qElXrLbUiREjF_wE04Yqj</recordid><startdate>20230901</startdate><enddate>20230901</enddate><creator>Harrison, Leila E</creator><creator>Fletcher, Laura</creator><creator>Dunleavy, Dana</creator><creator>Price-Johnson, Tanisha</creator><creator>Kundu, Roopal Vashi</creator><creator>Fogerty, Glen T</creator><creator>Berardi-Demo, Linda</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230901</creationdate><title>Self-reported Disadvantage in Medical School Admissions: A Call to Review, Revise, and Further Advance Holistic Review</title><author>Harrison, Leila E ; Fletcher, Laura ; Dunleavy, Dana ; Price-Johnson, Tanisha ; Kundu, Roopal Vashi ; Fogerty, Glen T ; Berardi-Demo, Linda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3988-25b9ad6f2c2c91239e7235faa8f20408741de0b5cb34947b2c14fa96d5b1461c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Leila E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fletcher, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunleavy, Dana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price-Johnson, Tanisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kundu, Roopal Vashi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fogerty, Glen T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berardi-Demo, Linda</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Academic Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harrison, Leila E</au><au>Fletcher, Laura</au><au>Dunleavy, Dana</au><au>Price-Johnson, Tanisha</au><au>Kundu, Roopal Vashi</au><au>Fogerty, Glen T</au><au>Berardi-Demo, Linda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Self-reported Disadvantage in Medical School Admissions: A Call to Review, Revise, and Further Advance Holistic Review</atitle><jtitle>Academic Medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Med</addtitle><date>2023-09-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>98</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1044</spage><epage>1052</epage><pages>1044-1052</pages><issn>1040-2446</issn><eissn>1938-808X</eissn><abstract>This study examined how applicants interpret the self-reported disadvantaged (SRD) question in the American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS) application.
data from 129,262 applicants who applied through AMCAS from 2017 through 2019 were used, including financial and family history, demographic characteristics, and work status and residence. Fifteen applicants from the 2020 and 2021 AMCAS cycles were interviewed about their experiences with the SRD question.
Large effects were found for SRD applicants with fee assistance waivers (h = 0.89), Pell grants (h = 1.21), state or federal aid (h = 1.10), and parents with less education (h = 0.98) and non-SRD applicants with a large proportion of their education paid by family (d =1.03). Another large difference was found for reported family income distribution (73% of SRD applicants reporting family income < $50,000 vs 15% of non-SRD applicants). More SRD applicants were Black or Hispanic (26% vs 16% and 5% vs 5%), Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients (11% vs 2%), born outside the United States (32% vs 16%), and raised in a medically underserved area (60% vs 14%). There was a moderate effect for first-generation to college SRD applicants (h = 0.61). SRD applicants had lower Medical College Admission Test scores (d = 0.62) and overall and science grade point averages (d = 0.50 and 0.49, respectively) but no meaningful differences in acceptance or matriculation rates. The interviews identified 5 themes: (1) unclear disadvantage definition; (2) different perceptions of disadvantage and overcoming challenges or obstacles; (3) identification as disadvantaged or not; (4) SRD essay content; and (5) concerns about lack of transparency in how the SRD question is used in admissions.
Revising the SRD question by including context, phrasing, and instructions on broader categories of experiences might be beneficial because of lack of transparency and understanding.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins</pub><pmid>37232756</pmid><doi>10.1097/ACM.0000000000005272</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1040-2446 |
ispartof | Academic Medicine, 2023-09, Vol.98 (9), p.1044-1052 |
issn | 1040-2446 1938-808X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2820015762 |
source | Journals@Ovid LWW Legacy Archive; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
title | Self-reported Disadvantage in Medical School Admissions: A Call to Review, Revise, and Further Advance Holistic Review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T00%3A19%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Self-reported%20Disadvantage%20in%20Medical%20School%20Admissions:%20A%20Call%20to%20Review,%20Revise,%20and%20Further%20Advance%20Holistic%20Review&rft.jtitle=Academic%20Medicine&rft.au=Harrison,%20Leila%20E&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.volume=98&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1044&rft.epage=1052&rft.pages=1044-1052&rft.issn=1040-2446&rft.eissn=1938-808X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005272&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2820015762%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2820015762&rft_id=info:pmid/37232756&rfr_iscdi=true |