Does regional quota status affect the performance of undergraduate medical students in Japan? A 10-year analysis.

IF 1.6 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES International Journal of Medical Education Pub Date : 2022-11-30 DOI:10.5116/ijme.6372.1fce
Satoshi Ozeki, Sachiko Kasamo, Hiroyasu Inoue, Seiji Matsumoto
{"title":"Does regional quota status affect the performance of undergraduate medical students in Japan? A 10-year analysis.","authors":"Satoshi Ozeki,&nbsp;Sachiko Kasamo,&nbsp;Hiroyasu Inoue,&nbsp;Seiji Matsumoto","doi":"10.5116/ijme.6372.1fce","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to determine whether there is a difference in the academic performance of medical students based on admission type and examine the extent to which entrance examinations predict their performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational study utilized existing data from Asahikawa Medical University. Participants were 1057 medical students who had enrolled between 2010 and 2019. Analysis of variance and Tukey's test were utilized to identify differences between admission types. The multiple linear regression explored predictors of cumulative grade point average for each type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of variance showed significant differences in the National Center Test (F<sub>(3, 1053)</sub> =70.78, p <0.001) and cumulative grade point average (F<sub>(3, 1053)</sub> =3.93, p <0.01). Tukey's post hoc test revealed that two types of general admission students (M=83.52, SD=3.22; M=85.57, SD=3.01) were significantly higher on the National Center Test than two types of regional quota students (M=81.61, SD=3.93; M=80.65, SD=3.61). The cumulative grade point average of a regional quota group (M=2.23, SD=0.34) was significantly higher than two types of general admissions (M=2.11, SD=0.36; M=2.12, SD=0.34). High school grade point averages and females were significant in predicting cumulative grade point averages for each admission (16.0-28.3% variance).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Regional quota students earned a higher cumulative grade point average than those from general admissions, despite their significantly lower scores on the National Center Test. Enhanced utilization of regional quota admissions could become an effective strategy to increase the rural physician workforce.</p>","PeriodicalId":14029,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medical Education","volume":"13 ","pages":"307-314"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9911283/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.6372.1fce","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to determine whether there is a difference in the academic performance of medical students based on admission type and examine the extent to which entrance examinations predict their performance.

Methods: This observational study utilized existing data from Asahikawa Medical University. Participants were 1057 medical students who had enrolled between 2010 and 2019. Analysis of variance and Tukey's test were utilized to identify differences between admission types. The multiple linear regression explored predictors of cumulative grade point average for each type.

Results: Analysis of variance showed significant differences in the National Center Test (F(3, 1053) =70.78, p <0.001) and cumulative grade point average (F(3, 1053) =3.93, p <0.01). Tukey's post hoc test revealed that two types of general admission students (M=83.52, SD=3.22; M=85.57, SD=3.01) were significantly higher on the National Center Test than two types of regional quota students (M=81.61, SD=3.93; M=80.65, SD=3.61). The cumulative grade point average of a regional quota group (M=2.23, SD=0.34) was significantly higher than two types of general admissions (M=2.11, SD=0.36; M=2.12, SD=0.34). High school grade point averages and females were significant in predicting cumulative grade point averages for each admission (16.0-28.3% variance).

Conclusions: Regional quota students earned a higher cumulative grade point average than those from general admissions, despite their significantly lower scores on the National Center Test. Enhanced utilization of regional quota admissions could become an effective strategy to increase the rural physician workforce.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
区域配额状况会影响日本医科本科学生的表现吗?一个10年的分析。
目的:本研究旨在探讨不同录取类型的医学生学业成绩是否存在差异,并探讨入学考试对医学生学业成绩的预测程度。方法:本观察性研究利用了旭川医科大学的现有数据。参与者是2010年至2019年间入学的1057名医学生。采用方差分析和Tukey’s检验来确定入院类型之间的差异。多元线性回归探讨了各类学生累积平均绩点的预测因子。结果:方差分析显示,全国中心考试成绩差异显著(F(3,1053) =70.78, p (3,1053) =3.93, p)。结论:地区配额学生的累积平均绩点高于普通招生学生,尽管他们的全国中心考试成绩明显低于普通招生学生。提高区域配额招生的利用率可以成为增加农村医生劳动力的有效策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Medical Education
International Journal of Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
3.20%
发文量
38
期刊最新文献
How do mentors perceive and perform their role in a reflection-based mentoring programme for medical students? Enhancing the learning experience by empowering medical students to co-create learning tools and classroom activities. Profiles of intercultural sensitivity of healthcare students: a person-centred approach. Effectively supporting widening participation learners in medical education through a capability approach lens. Exploring a metacognitive approach for case analysis based learning of anxiety adjustment in nurses: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1