Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 11614118

[Not Available].

Abstract

A review of the inaugural addresses held during half a century in Italy makes clear the image that the University professors of medicine wanted to present about themselves and their activities. They sang a hymn to science, the only admittable authority, by which useful and astonishing prodigies were performed. The annual addresses deliberately stressed those particular themes which would better illustrate past and present progress: surgical improvements, achievements in hygiene and dictates of preventive medicine, bacteriological 'revolution' etc. More and more the medical professors were claiming competences which should enlarge their field; they promised the just unified Italian nation that they would bring about a gradual but whole physical, moral and social "redemption".

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Pogliano. 1994. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11614118/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗