Assessing the validity and applicability of the French 3‐year prognostic score in the UK cystic fibrosis population ‐ a national cohort study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Freddy Frost ◽  
Dilip Nazareth ◽  
Matthew Shaw ◽  
Mohamed Al‐Aloul
Haemophilia ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 641-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. A. Chalmers ◽  
J. Alamelu ◽  
P. W. Collins ◽  
M. Mathias ◽  
J. Payne ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. S45 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.C. Felton ◽  
L. Yazbeck ◽  
E. Gunn ◽  
M. Moffatt ◽  
W.O. Cookson ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e034437
Author(s):  
Paul A Tiffin ◽  
Lewis W Paton

ObjectivesThe UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) previously piloted an assessment of ‘online confidence’, where candidates were asked to indicate how confident they were with their answers. This study examines the relationship between these ratings, the odds of receiving an offer to study medicine and subsequent undergraduate academic performance.DesignNational cohort study.SettingUK undergraduate medical selection.Participants56 785 UKCAT candidates who sat the test between 2013 and 2016 and provided valid responses to the online confidence pilot study.Primary outcome measuresTwo measures of ‘online confidence’ were derived: the well-established ‘confidence bias’, and; a novel ‘confidence judgement’ measure, developed using Item Response Theory in order to derive a more sophisticated metric of the ability to evaluate one’s own performance on a task. Regression models investigated the relationships between these confidence measures, application success and academic performance.ResultsOnline confidence was inversely related to cognitive performance. Relative underconfidence was associated with increased odds of receiving an offer to study medicine. For ‘confidence bias’ this effect was independent of potential confounders (OR 1.48, 1.15 to 1.91, p=0.002). While ‘confidence judgement’ was also a univariable predictor of application success (OR 1.22, 1.01 to 1.47, p=0.04), it was not an independent predictor. ‘Confidence bias’, but not ‘confidence judgement’, predicted the odds of passing the first year of university at the first attempt, independently of cognitive performance, with relative underconfidence positively related to academic success (OR 3.24, 1.08 to 9.72, p=0.04). No non-linear effects were observed, suggesting no ‘sweet spot’ exists in relation to online confidence and the outcomes studied.ConclusionsApplicants who either appear underconfident, or are better at judging their own performance on a task, are more likely to receive an offer to study medicine. However, online confidence estimates had limited ability to predict subsequent academic achievement. Moreover, there are practical challenges to evaluating online confidence in high-stakes selection.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document