Journal of Public Health Advance Access originally published online on September 19, 2007
Journal of Public Health 2007 29(4):331-337; doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdm060
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Selection into specialty training in public health: performance of the Medical Training Application Service shortlisting
Nora Pashayan, Specialist Registrar in Public Health1
Celia Duff, Associate Dean and Head of School, Public Health2
Brendan W. Mason, Consultant Epidemiologist and Training Programme Director for Public Health3,
1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK
2 East of England Multi-Professional Deanery, Block 3, Ida Darwin Site, Fulbourn, Cambridge CB21 5EE, UK
3 National Public Health Service for Wales, The Temple of Peace and Health, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NW, UK
Address correspondence to Brendan W. Mason, E-mail: brendan.mason{at}nphs.wales.nhs.uk
| Abstract |
|---|
Objective To assess the performance of shortlisting against appointability to public health specialty training under the Medical Training Application Service (MTAS) selection methodology using multiple modality in person assessment.
Methods Candidates who had applied to public health specialty training programme in Wales and East of England and shortlisted were assessed in the first assessment round. Further to MTAS review, candidates not previously short listed were offered assessment in the second round. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was done.
Results In both the programmes, the shortlisting scores of candidates considered appointable were substantially higher than those considered not appointable, a score difference of 13.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0–23.0) and 13.5 (95% CI 3.4–23.5) respectively. The area under the ROC curve (ROCAUC) was 0.88 (95% CI 0.63–1.00) in Wales and 0.77 (95% CI 0.57–0.97) in East of England. The shortlisting scores of the two programmes that gave an optimum performance (maximum sum of the sensitivity and specificity) were comparable (scores of 62 and 63 respectively).
Conclusion MTAS shortlisting undertaken in two independent public health specialty training programmes discriminated well between appointable and not appointable candidates.
Keywords: medical training application service (MTAS), specialty training, postgraduate medical education, assessment centre, receiver operating characteristic analysis