Method: A cross-sectional study was carried out on a sample of medical students in their final year at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using AMOS 22 to assess construct validity. Reliability analysis was performed using SPSS 22 to assess internal consistency.
Results: A total of 159 final year medical students participated. CFA showed that the original four-factor model with 15 items achieved acceptable values for the goodness of fit indices, suggesting a good model fit (X2 = 198.295, ChiSq/df = 2.418, RMSEA = 0.095, GFI = 0.867, CFI = 0.953, NFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.940). The Cronbach's alpha values of the mentoring relationship structure, engagement, and competency support domains were 0.96, 0.90 and 0.88, respectively. For autonomy support, the Cronbach's alpha value was 0.62.
Conclusion: MBS demonstrates a satisfactory level of construct validity and a high level of internal consistency in measuring supportive mentor behaviours in a medical school setting. This result suggests that MBS can be used as a mentorship evaluation tool for feedback in the context of a Malaysian medical school.
Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted on the interviewed and non-interviewed cohorts. Their examination marks were obtained from the academic office, psychological health was measured by DASS-21, personality traits were measured by USMaP-15, and emotional intelligence was measured by USMEQ-17.
Results: The interviewed cohort performed significantly better in the clinical examination than the non-interviewed cohort. Conversely, the non-interviewed cohort performed significantly better in the theoretical examination. Depression, anxiety, and stress level between the two cohorts showed no difference. The interviewed cohort demonstrated more desirable personality traits, higher emotional intelligence, and social competence than the non-interviewed cohort.
Discussion: This study provides evidence to support the claim that the interview-based admission process has favourable outcomes on clinical performance, emotional intelligence, and personality traits. Several insights gained as a result of this study are discussed.
Methods: We adopted a comparative cross-sectional study on pre-clinical medical students who appeared in two different admission tests. The stress, anxiety, and depression levels of students were measured by the depression, anxiety, stress scale (DASS-21), and their burnout level was measured by the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory.
Results: The stress, anxiety, and depression scores between MMI and PI were not significantly different (p-value > 0.05). The personal, work and client burnout scores between MMI and PI were not significantly different (p-value > 0.05). The prevalence of stress (MMI = 39%, PI = 36.9%), anxiety (MMI = 78%, PI = 67.4%), depression (MMI = 41%, PI = 36.2%) and burnout (MMI = 29%, PI = 31.9%) between MMI and PI cohorts was not significantly different (p-value > 0.05). These results showed similar levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and burnout in students at the end of the pre-clinical phase.
Conclusions: This study showed similar psychological health status of the pre-clinical students who were enrolled by two different admission tests. The prevalence of stress, anxiety, burnout, and depression among the pre-clinical medical students was comparable to the global prevalence. The results indicate that medical schools can consider implementing either MMI or PI to recruit suitable candidates for medical training.