No evidence HPAT finds more empathetic doctors

take everything

A UCC study published in the BMJ found no evidence that the much heralded HPAT leads to the selection of more caring doctors with better interpersonal skills.

Not sure of its robustness but other studies have reported similar

Just as I suspected tbh.
Another moneymaking false dawn likely to be gamed by the wealthier (apparently those who studied for the interpersonal stuff with a heap of grinds did better on repeating the next year; IIRC this improvement was only seen in the interpersonal/touchy-feely bit and the aptitude test part was largely unaffected by grinding).

So the exact opposite result (more wealthier thickos getting in) to the what HPATs bungling tried to solve.

oppenheimer1

take everything wrote: »

A UCC study published in the BMJ found no evidence that the much heralded HPAT leads to the selection of more caring doctors with better interpersonal skills.

Not sure of its robustness but other studies have reported similar

Just as I suspected tbh.
Another moneymaking false dawn likely to be gamed by the wealthier (apparently those who studied for the interpersonal stuff with a heap of grinds did better on repeating the next year; IIRC this improvement was only seen in the interpersonal/touchy-feely bit and the aptitude test part was largely unaffected by grinding).

So the exact opposite result (more wealthier thickos getting in) to the what HPATs bungling tried to solve.

HPAT wasn't about getting more caring doctors. It's about opening up medicine to those not able to get top marks in the leaving - essentially it was pseudo randomising entry above a certain level of academic achievement.

Of course people are now able to work the system with another set of grinds.

wordofwarning

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

HPAT wasn't about getting more caring doctors. It's about opening up medicine to those not able to get top marks in the leaving - essentially it was pseudo randomising entry above a certain level of academic achievement.

Of course people are now able to work the system with another set of grinds.

Out of my circle of friends who went for medicine, the higher the points they got. The better they tended to do in the HPAT. One of my friends got 625 points in the LC and 99% percentile in the HPAT. Out of my circle of friends, how well you did in the HPAT was nearly proportional to how well you did in the LC.

Hollister11

Would you have a link by any chance? I can't see to find it.

drrkpd

Here is link and full article is open to everyone-

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/7/e016076

The HPAT was never an aptitude test for medicine- no such test could possibly exist as their are so many different skills required for different specialties within medicine.

drrkpd

Must be the only examination that by their figures the males do better than females overall but I dont know if that is true for the whole HPAT group or even if such data is published.

drrkpd

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-016-9728-z
The construct validity of HPAT-Ireland for the selection of medical students: unresolved issues and future research implications
Another article reviewing the HPAT and in fact stating that the gender bias towards males varies year to year. However final conclusion is that-
"[font=Georgia,serif] In conclusion, the attitudes towards, and performance of, HPAT-Ireland is not unlike that of other aptitude tests widely used internationally. The main justifications for its introduction have been achieved, in that Ireland no longer relies exclusively on a single measure of academic record for selection to medical school. However a number of areas require further research and exploration.'[/font]

Anita Blow

drrkpd wrote: »

Must be the only examination that by their figures the males do better than females overall but I dont know if that is true for the whole HPAT group or even if such data is published.

Increasing the proportion of males gaining entry to medicine was one of the aims of the HPAT. Men perform better in spacial reasoning tasks, which is why section 3 is based on spacial reasoning.

drrkpd

Anita Blow wrote: »

drrkpd wrote: »

Must be the only examination that by their figures the males do better than females overall but I dont know if that is true for the whole HPAT group or even if such data is published.

Increasing the proportion of males gaining entry to medicine was one of the aims of the HPAT. Men perform better in spacial reasoning tasks, which is why section 3 is based on spacial reasoning.

Hi I am certain that was never the stated intention of the HPAT to help males. The UCC paper says males do better in Section 1 and 3 and females best in Section 2. Dont forget Section 3 marks have been reduced as well so that should equal things out.

Psychologeeee

Is the HPAT designed to measure empathy? From what I know of the JME it measures three factors, compassionate care, perspective taking and emotional detachment. It strikes me that the HPAT section 2 only taps into the "perspective taking" or cognitive empathy component.

Secondly, and the authors allude to this, it would be more meaningful to study this longitudinally involving measures of empathy in other college students, med students, and a sample of med students from another country who don't take the HPAT. Even then, the usefulness of such a study is limited if the perspectives of patients/service users are not captured, as to whether the perceive their doctor as being empathic.

drrkpd

Psychologeeee wrote: »

Is the HPAT designed to measure empathy? From what I know of the JME it measures three factors, compassionate care, perspective taking and emotional detachment. It strikes me that the HPAT section 2 only taps into the "perspective taking" or cognitive empathy component.

Secondly, and the authors allude to this, it would be more meaningful to study this longitudinally involving measures of empathy in other college students, med students, and a sample of med students from another country who don't take the HPAT. Even then, the usefulness of such a study is limited if the perspectives of patients/service users are not captured, as to whether the perceive their doctor as being empathic.

No i am sure that the HPAT was not designed to measure empathy. Clearly your expert view exposes the limitations of this study and also the limitations of coming to a simplistic conclusion on the HPAT based on it.

2Scoops

A curious study design - by only including medicals students who have already excelled in HPAT/LC, there was a substantial bias against finding a statistically significant correlation with JSE score. For strong correlations, both X and Y have to vary. It would have been nice to see a group with a poor HPAT score. This merely adds to the number of poorly-designed studies with an anti-HPAT agenda. It plays well to the anti-HPAT crowd and seems to be spared from close scrutiny.

For the record, I am against the HPAT, but I am also against the LC as the sole instrument of student selection.

drrkpd

2Scoops wrote: »

For the record, I am against the HPAT, but I am also against the LC as the sole instrument of student selection.

I agree with you about the LC but what ould you suggest for student selectionf you dont use the HPAT?

drrkpd

2Scoops wrote: »

For the record, I am against the HPAT, but I am also against the LC as the sole instrument of student selection.

I agree with you about the LC but what ould you suggest for student selection if you dont use the HPAT?

gctest50

drrkpd wrote: »

I agree with you about the LC but what ould you suggest for student selection if you dont use the HPAT?

Conscription ( like Finland,Denmark etc ) for a year or more

- but send them off out to help doctors in war and disaster zones

Be good for them, either get good at the communication skills etc or you'll be coming home in an urn