- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 9
- Reaction score
- 0
Examination of countries or geographical areas of origin revealed IDP students came from the Asia-Pacific (7.6 percent), China (9.9 percent), Eastern Europe (10.5 percent), Latin and South America (9.9 percent), India (15.2 percent), Middle East (10.5 percent), Philippines (9.4 percent), Taiwan (21.6 percent), and Western Europe (5.3 percent).
just to have an idea about numbers...
In a search for the most efficient and effective collection of measures for the admission of international students, the following conclusions are supported by the current study:
National Board Part II is the most significant predictor of academic performance and clinical competency, and its inclusion at the beginning of the admission process is crucial.
Dexterity was a significant predictor of academic performance and clinical competency. Even though the developed tests may be messy, time-consuming, and unstandardized, their inclusion provided additional predictive significance.
National Board Part I added little predictive assistance of academic performance and clinical competency if National Board Part II was included. Even though National Board Part I is administered before National Board Part II, its inclusion is not as critical to the selection process and should not replace National Board Part II.
TOEFL added no additional significant help to the prediction of academic performance and clinical competency. National Board Part I and/or National Board Part II appear to subsume what TOEFL adds; consequently, TOEFL could be eliminated without any loss of predictive clarity.
The faculty interview did not contribute to the prediction of academic performance and clinical competency of international students. The results of this study suggest that the interview requires a standardized format and or clarification of its purpose in the admissions process.
From a selection of measures, National Board Part II and dexterity scores were identified as the best predictors of academic performance and clinical competency for international students. While it is tempting to assume a greater number of measures would increase the accuracy of the predictions, that assumption is not supported by the data.
ups more on the subject... 🙂)
just to have an idea about numbers...
In a search for the most efficient and effective collection of measures for the admission of international students, the following conclusions are supported by the current study:
National Board Part II is the most significant predictor of academic performance and clinical competency, and its inclusion at the beginning of the admission process is crucial.
Dexterity was a significant predictor of academic performance and clinical competency. Even though the developed tests may be messy, time-consuming, and unstandardized, their inclusion provided additional predictive significance.
National Board Part I added little predictive assistance of academic performance and clinical competency if National Board Part II was included. Even though National Board Part I is administered before National Board Part II, its inclusion is not as critical to the selection process and should not replace National Board Part II.
TOEFL added no additional significant help to the prediction of academic performance and clinical competency. National Board Part I and/or National Board Part II appear to subsume what TOEFL adds; consequently, TOEFL could be eliminated without any loss of predictive clarity.
The faculty interview did not contribute to the prediction of academic performance and clinical competency of international students. The results of this study suggest that the interview requires a standardized format and or clarification of its purpose in the admissions process.
From a selection of measures, National Board Part II and dexterity scores were identified as the best predictors of academic performance and clinical competency for international students. While it is tempting to assume a greater number of measures would increase the accuracy of the predictions, that assumption is not supported by the data.
ups more on the subject... 🙂)
