Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

688

IntroductionSelecting potential students from anapplicant pool for professional under-graduate health courses poses a chal-lenge for all health educators. Theadmissions team must evaluate a variety ofinformation available on all applicants todetermine whether they will be successfulon the programme. This is a particularlychallenging issue for the highly com-petitive undergraduate physiotherapyprogrammes in the United Kingdom dueto the large numbers of applicants.Current government policy is also driving

the need to widen access to a broaderrange of entrants. Universities UK (2001)statement on widening participationsupports the government’s current aim ofnot only enrolling 50% of the populationin higher education before the age of 30years but also making those entrants morerepresentative of the wider society.

The attainment of academic grades and the interviewing of prospectivecandidates continue to be used as themain admission critera for physio-therapy. However, some physiotherapyeducators are starting to question the

Selection of Pre-registrationPhysiotherapy StudentsChanging to a more objective process

Summary Selection interviews and the use of grade achievement via a points system continue to beused as the fundamental criteria for admission to most pre-registration physiotherapy courses in theUnited Kingdom. This traditional process has not always been shown to be effective in terms of studentattrition rates and resources. Important policy drivers such as widening participation in higher educationdo not sit well with the many problematic issues that are emerging from the interviewing process, suchas inadvertent bias and the potential for disadvantaging the very applicants (for example, those fromminority ethnic groups), which the profession as a whole may wish to encourage. Many educators arequestioning this process and recognise that the existing system is problematic and not conducive topromoting widening access and equal opportunity policies.

This paper describes the changes in this traditional selection process undertaken by the BSc(Hons)Physiotherapy course team at Leeds Metropolitan University.

The pre-1999 admissions process is described. The authors then outline the new process, whichmainly involved the changing of two key issues:

� Elimination of interviewing as a means of selecting prospective undergraduate students.

� Development of an objective random selection process which would represent more accurately thediverse eligible applicant pool and be more representative of the population as a whole.

This paper surveys a wide range of literature that explores the challenges of meaningful selection forhealth-related courses.

A rationale for the case for change is offered. Data are presented as an interim audit, comparingstudent progression, achievement and outcome from the new non-interviewing process with the oldsystem. There is an increase in the number of mature applicants, which may be a fairer reflection of theapplicant pool. Applicants are also being selected with a greater range of entry qualifications.

Further work needs to be undertaken on resources for staff. Confounding factors are discussed. Thewider implications of equal opportunities for all those interested in a career in physiotherapy and thediverse nature of the total applicant pool are considered in relation to the new process and the needs ofthe profession.

Key WordsInterviews, physiotherapy students, admissions.

by Mark LewisSusan Smith

Lewis, M and Smith, S(2002). ‘Selection ofpre-registrationphysiotherapystudents:Changing to a moreobjective process’,Physiotherapy, 88, 11,688-698.

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 688

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

689Scholarly paper

value of interviewing and some univ-ersities have actually stopped usinginterviewing as part of the selectionprocess for undergraduate entry to thephysiotherapy profession.

Non-academic attributes such asinterpersonal and communication skills,essential for any physiotherapist, are alsoused as selection criteria and are oftenassessed through interview (Scott et al,1995). However, these non-academicattributes are much harder to measure ina standardised and non-biased way thanacademic achievement manifested in theform of examination grades.

This paper describes and discusses therationale behind the new selectionprocess undertaken by the BSc(Hons)Physiotherapy course team at LeedsMetropolitan University. Figure 1 showsthe process involved in assessing theUniversity and College Admissions Serviceapplication form.

The new process involved:

� Abolishing the interviewing ofprospective students.

� Making a standard offer to allapplicants.

It also involved development of anobjective procedure which used randomselection in the attempt to reflect thediversity of the applicant pool.

This new process was initiated for theundergraduate BSc(Hons)Physiotherapycohort of September 1999 and is beingfully reviewed in 2002 by analysing cohortstatistics.

Selection Before 1999Prior to 1999 the Physiotherapy Group,which comprised the academic staff of theLeeds BSc(Hons) Physiotherapy course,reviewed the University and CollegeAdmissions Service forms of prospect-

Fig 1: New selection process. This is an example for a standard school leaver. There areequivalent criteria for candidates offering other qualifications. The academic requirementsare currently being reviewed for the new post-16 qualifications

Selecting For Course Entrance

Initial screening to match academic criteria by administrative staff.Application forms are then passed on to academic staff to consider via the following steps:

Step 1: Check choices – majority should be physiotherapy. Check age: If >21 at time of entry will be in ‘mature’ category.

School leavers

Step 2: GCSE profile.

Step 3: Entry requirements – see academic requirements.

Step 4: Reference – Academic: Look for BBB predictions. Three passes includingone science from the following: biology/human biology/social biology, chemistry,physics or maths.

Step 5: Reference – Character

Step 6: Personal statement: In addition to the academic entry requirements, applicant will be expected to show evidence of a broad range of personalqualities (perhaps through school, volunteer work or personal interests.These could include:� Excellent communication skills

� High level of interest and knowledge of the physiotherapy profession.

� Evidence of work experience in physiotherapy.

Step 7: General impression: This may include additional information sent to us.

Step 8: Make decision: Yes, no or uncertain. Forms are returned to admissionstutor. Two other staff members will re-read all the forms in the uncertain categoryand make final decision.

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 689

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

690

ive applicants by assessing academicqualifications and personal statementsusing agreed criteria. Following thisassessment, candidates who met thecriteria progressed to interviews of twotypes:

� School leavers attended a groupinterview conducted by two or morestaff. This included the input of invited physiotherapy clinicians asinterviewers.

� Mature candidates were interviewedindividually by one member of theuniversity staff.

From the results of the interviews andthe application forms, provisional offerswere made which correlated to the gradesapplicants were predicted to achieve intheir final school examination results.However, as these predictions werespecific to the grades and not a pointssystem, students who received, forexample, the offer of a place providedthey achieved three Bs might have beenrejected if they had gained one A, one Band one C grade. Students who hadreceived a provisional offer on conditionthey gained an A and two Bs might alsohave been rejected if they had receivedtwo As and a C.

At the time, these specific requirementsseemed to be a practical solution to thevast national demand for physiotherapyundergraduate places and the possibilityof too many offers being accepted and the course consequently being over-subscribed.

In the authors’ experience, this processalmost invariably led to a conflict betweenoffering too many or too few places toapplicants.

Concerns Considerable numbers of students applyfor the BSc(Hons)Physiotherapy course atLeeds Metropolitan University. In 1995 to1998 there were 26 applicants for eachplace (on average 1,200 applicants for 40 places). These application figures are similar for physiotherapy schoolsthroughout the UK.

Sheer volume of applications meantthat the Leeds physiotherapy staff groupspent a large amount of time vettingforms, preparing for and conductinggroup and individual interviews. Concernwas also expressed about the subject-

ivity of the process and the potential forinadvertent bias.

Discussion related particularly to a smallsurvey of admissions tutors and careersadvisers in schools and colleges which hadbeen carried out by one of the authors(Lewis, 1999). The survey confirmed thatprospective applicants received aconsistent level of career informationwhich related specifically to physiotherapyand also that there were similaradmissions criteria which related to bothacademic qualifications and personalattributes for all the UK universities thatoffered physiotherapy programmes. Itcould therefore be argued that theprospective pool of applicants would beconsistent in terms of similar ability andoutlook on admission.

After considerable discussion, thephysiotherapy staff group concluded thatinterviewing would not necessarilyprovide fresh information about theapplicants. As a result of these findings, it was decided to look more closely at the efficiency and validity of currentadmissions practice at Leeds.

BackgroundMuch of the literature about interviewingand the selection and admissions processconcerns other healthcare courses such as medicine and nursing. There is a lack of material relating specifically tophysiotherapy undergraduate education.The Medline and Cinahl databases weresearched using key words that included‘interviews’, ‘admissions’, ‘students’,‘admissions procedure’ and ‘admissionscriteria’.

The areas discussed in this paper werethe key issues which emerged fromanalysis of the literature.

Complexity of the Admissions ProcessBrown et al (1991) asserted that theadmissions process for nursing ‘is anextremely complex issue, affected by anumber of interacting factors’. As a resultof this complexity, they and other authors(Hoad Reddick and Macfarlane, 1999)questioned the validity and reliability ofthe process and the general lack ofobjectivity and standardisation in theadmissions process.

Academic AbilityThere is a common thread in the use ofpre-entry academic ability for health-

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 690

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

691Scholarly paper

Authors andAddress forCorrespondence

Mark Lewis BEdMCSP is a seniorlecturer andadmissions officer for the BSc(Hons)Physiotherapy courseat Leeds MetropolitanUniversity,Woodhouse Lane,Leeds LS1 3HE.

Susan Smith MAMCSP is a seniorlecturer inphysiotherapy atLeeds MetropolitanUniversity.

This article wasreceived on March 9,2001, and acceptedon May 5, 2002.

There was no specialsource of funding forthis piece of work.

Acknowledgements

The authors wouldlike to acknowledgethe contribution ofthe BSc(Hons)Physiotherapy stafftutors whose ongoingviews andcommitment led tothese changes in theadmissions process.We would also like to thank Dr Pennie Robertswho catalysed andmanaged the group at the time of thechanges.

related professional undergraduatecourses. Both Holt and Dunlevy (1992)and Agho et al (1999) reported thecontinuing trend of using academicqualifications as a benchmark for sel-ection.

Payton (1997) in a meta-analysis ofadmissions criteria for physiotherapyeducation stated that grade pointaverage/pre-entry academic gradeaverage was a valid and reliable predictorof student success in the academicportion of the physical therapy educationprogrammes in the USA. However, Morrisand Farmer (1999) contradicted this bywriting that academic grades were a weakpredictor of course performance acrossthree years in UK programmes.

It has been debated in the USA thatreliance on grade point average as a pre-entry requirement disadvantagesapplicants from ethnic and racial minoritybackgrounds (Shaw et al, 1995; Edwards,1990). This may be an issue for con-sideration in the area of widening accessfor physiotherapy programmes in theUnited Kingdom.

Attrition RatesEvidence in the literature about the effectof interviewing or not interviewing at pre-entry in relation to attrition rates wasagain inconclusive.

Two studies, one with physiotherapymasters students (Gabard et al, 1997) and one in nursing undergraduateprogrammes (Ehrenfeld and Tabak,2000) concluded that the use ofinterviews to determine entry had noinfluence on the attrition rates ofstudents. Both these studies indicatedthere was a need for further research butdid not show a difference in the attritionrates for both the interviewed and non-interviewed students, and raised questionsabout the value of interviewing applicants.It could be regarded as questionablewhether it is worth the continuinginvestment of the institution’s expenseand staff time, notwithstanding theadditional anxiety for the applicants inperpetuating a process which is notconfirmed as valid or effective.

Broader Approach Literature was analysed which focused onthe discussion of broader approaches tothe selection of students in healthcareprofessions.

Feletti et al (1985) used a multi-stagedapproach which tested problem-solving,empathy, creativity and coping with moraldilemmas as well as academic ability to screen applicants. This appeared‘reasonably reliable’, although this wasnot clearly defined and there wereproblems with the methodology.

In an alternative approach, Aldrich(1987) used psychiatric interviews andpsychological tests but found these to beinsignificant in predicting successfulcompletion of a course. A factor toconsider would be the ethical issuesinvolved in this more intrusive testing.

Kerr’s (1985) paper questioned thereliability and the validity of interviewsand proposed that non-cognitive factorswere also important. These included areassuch as personality, study habits, maturity,motivation and planning skills.

These studies are to be commended in terms of thinking creatively aboutdifferent approaches for admissions pro-cedures. However, much of the discussionof the literature was inconclusive and asthe authors themselves stated, in themajority of cases further more compre-hensive work needed to be carried out toevaluate effectiveness.

Mature Applicants Feil et al (1998) and Rikard-Bell et al(1991) described how a number ofphysiotherapy and medical courseadmissions teams interviewed maturecandidates only. The findings indicatedthat mature candidates did as well on the courses as school leavers despite their lower academic entry grades. Greenand Waterfield (1997) compared non-standard pre-entry qualifications such asBTEC and access qualifications (which are more likely to be held by maturecandidates) to traditional entry qual-ifications. Mature students were no less likely to achieve the same degreeclassification as those with more standardpre-entry requirements. These studiessupported widening access to courses forprospective students including matureapplicants and those who offered a varietyof qualifications such as access coursesand vocational courses.

Problems with InterviewingLack of Evidence for Use of InterviewsInterviewing as a part of the selectionprocess was supported in the literature by

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 691

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

692

a range of articles which included HoadReddick and Macfarlane (1999) andPowis et al (1988). However, in contrastNayer (1992) and Gabard et al (1997)questioned the value of interviewing.Willer et al (1984) questioned its use forthe selection of medical and dentalstudents and proposed further researchinto the area to elicit the effectiveness ofthe interview as part of the selectionprocess.

BiasConsiderable work was available relatingto interviewers and how they ratedapplicants in terms of sex, appearance,race, and their similarity to theinterviewer and their contrast to otherapplicants (Marquart et al, 1990; Shaw et al, 1995). These studies indicated therewas a possibility of disadvantaging somecandidates at interview. It was possiblethat despite interviewers’ best intentions acombination of any of the above factorscould lead to bias during the interviewprocess. This had further implications forthe successful implementation of anyequal opportunities or widening accessand participation policy.

Marquart et al (1990) raised an inter-esting issue by discussing how inter-viewees believed that they gave morehonest responses to interviewers of thesame sex. This may have implications forresources in terms of staff time and theiravailability for interviewing.

StandardisationLack of standardisation between thedifferent interviewers raised otherproblematic issues, particularly withmature students. It appeared from theliterature that results from one personinterviewing candidates alone wereunreliable and that teams of two or threeinterviewers were more consistent in theirevaluations (Mitchell et al, 1987).

In a similar vein, the possible incon-sistency of interview teams was illus-trated by Youdas et al (1996) in whichinterviewers would have rejected 18% to29% of students who had been selectedon academic criteria alone. Ewan andMelville (1982), in research based on aphysical therapy programme in the USA,stated there was a wide variation in thescoring for performance skills by indiv-idual team members of the interviewpanel at the actual interview.

Youdas (1996) commented on thebenefits of having team members reviewspecific criteria just before the interviewprocess begins each year to reduce intra-team variability. It was noted that this wasnot done in the initial Leeds MetropolitanUniversity admissions process.

The New Process From the literature reviewed, evidence ofthe need to interview applicants wasinconclusive. Academic and clinical staffhad expressed concerns that interviewingwas necessary to filter applicants withinappropriate social and personal skills,though these issues were not supported bythe literature. It seems that the practice ofinterviewing prospective healthcarestudents for entry to undergraduateprogrammes is common, fraught withdifficulties and does not necessarilypredict success.

The Physiotherapy Group had discussedadmissions procedures at length andparticularly addressed the core purpose ofinterviews. Apart from the unreliability ofinterviews as indicators of success, therewere also issues of potential discrim-ination (unconscious rather thandeliberate) and of investing time in aprocess for which there was no clearevidence of benefits. It was thereforedecided that interviews should beremoved from the selection process for atrial period. This would allow thePhysiotherapy Group to evaluate theeffect (if any) of selecting from theinformation on the University andCollege Admissions Service form alone.With such a large number of highlyqualified applicants, an equitable sele-ction process needed to be developed andimplemented.

Stratified Random Selection The Physiotherapy Group is committed toprinciples of equal opportunity and theliterature review indicated that this wasmissing when an interview was used. Withthe high number of applicants per placeand the excellent standard of thecandidates, offers of places needed to bemade based upon as objective a process aspossible to meet these requirements. Theaim was to produce a balanced cohortrepresentative of those applicants whomet the selection criteria made up ofpersonal and academic qualities. The newprocess for admissions was developed

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 692

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

693Scholarly paper

taking into account the Code of Practicefor Equal Opportunities in PhysiotherapyEducation and the university's com-mitment to equal opportunities andwidening participation (LMU, 1999) inorder to address the issues which relatedto direct and indirect discrimination.

Following consultation with senioruniversity administrative staff to ensurethat the process matched universityregulations, an objective system wasformulated. This was then taken forwardfor discussion within the PhysiotherapyGroup and then approved by senioruniversity staff.

Applicants were to be offered places onthe course through a selection procedurethat reflected the general make-up ofeligible applicants and was as objective aspossible. At the initial stage of discussionit was determined to group the applicantsinto categories which needed to reflectthe composition of the applicant pool.These categories, which were made as broad as possible and agreed byPhysiotherapy Group members and senioruniversity staff, were:

� Female school leaver� Male school leaver� Female mature applicant� Male mature applicant

Candidates were selected from theeligible applicants and not from the totalapplicant pool. Offers made reflected thenumbers in each category.

The Physiotherapy Group devised aframework to select the eligible applicantpool to which this random selectionprocess could be applied. Figure 1illustrates this route for a standard schoolleaver, though all applicants wereexpected to demonstrate similar personaland academic qualities.

The assessment procedure involved allthe academic and administrative stafffrom the physiotherapy team.

Administrative staff were involved ininitial screening of the forms reviewingacademic qualifications, whether A-level,GNVQ, degree or others, which wereestablished in the academic criteria as abaseline for all applicants. For example,all school leavers were expected toachieve three Bs with one science, andwere not expected to achieve a highergrade. The decision to use three Bs as a baseline was in line with academic

requirements for other schools. The teamconsidered that the academic demands of the course required this level ofqualification, although it has beenproposed by Morris and Farmer (1999)that it is not necessarily a predictor ofsuccess on the course. It could also beargued that this was an artificial baselineand purely a gating mechanism for anover-subscribed course. This issue wasdealt with for the 2002 entry by makingalterations under the new post-16 cur-riculum guidelines.

Following initial screening, the formwas passed on for review and assess-ment by an academic member of thePhysiotherapy Group who followed theagreed selection criteria. This took into account the varied experience acandidate offered while still embracingthe particular requirements of the phys-iotherapy course.

Finally the admissions tutor reviewedthe returned forms. The resulting pool of eligible applicants was reduced bycomputer-generated random selection toa final group who were offered a place onthe course. Roughly 100 offers were madefor 40 places. This is a common strategyused by physiotherapy courses tosafeguard full uptake of their availableplaces as applicants have six selections ontheir University and College AdmissionsService form and can make a first andsecond choice if offered a place. Figure 2shows a representative example and doesnot reflect our real figures.

1000 original applicants ➔ 400eligible applicants comprising:

� 200 female school leavers (50% total places) = 20 places

� 100 female mature students (25% total places) = 10 places

� 50 male school leavers (approximately 12% total places) = 5 places

� 50 male mature students(approximately 12% total places) = 5 places

Total = 40 places

Fig 2: Example of the new stratificationprocess

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 693

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

694

Discussion The authors believe that this new methodis a more objective process. There are,however, still some important universityadmissions issues that need to be morefully considered. These have already been well documented in the Dearingreport (NCIHE, 1997). In relation tophysiotherapy education and wider issues,these include the domination of theprofession by women, and the lowrepresentation of ethnic groups, disabledpeople and mature applicants.

The new process does not fully deal with the overwhelming dominance offemale school leavers who apply to the profession. It also does not fully tacklethe problems the Chartered Society ofPhysiotherapy faces in improving access to physiotherapy education for peoplefrom under-represented groups. We are,however, committed to the university'smission statement and corporate plan(LMU, 1999, 2000) which encouragesimplementation of strategies to facilitateaccess to under-represented groups.

One of the approaches that we arecurrently considering is stratification ofthe total applicant pool, which usuallynumbers over one thousand. This raisesissues relating to staff time and may still continue to reflect the high pro-portion of female school-leavers; it alsodoes nothing to encourage wider accessinitially from all groups to the course(and the profession). Widening access tothe profession on a national basis isbeyond the scope of this paper but is anissue that the Physiotherapy Groupacknowledges and is concerned about.

Access may be widened by the new post-16 qualification cycle which will allow amix of qualifications that may benefitsome applicants. However, this is onlystarting with the autumn 2002 entry. ThePhysiotherapy Group has made a fewimportant changes to the University andCollege Admissions Service forms forthese candidates. Although the academicrequirements for mature applicantsremain the same, two key changes are analteration to the requirements for schoolleavers, and introduction of a criteriaassessment form.

School LeaversUnder the new system students may sit acombination of subjects and build up arecord of points with far greater flexibility

than the former University and CollegeAdmissions Service tariff. For example,secondary school students may take foursubjects at the first-year or AS level butdecide to take only three on to the secondyear to gain the equivalent of the old A-level, now called an A2 award. However,they would retain the points gained forthe AS level they had not carried on tothe second year. These changes wereimplemented in the admissions academicrequirement for school leavers, who hadpreviously been required to gain aminimum of three Bs at A-level which onthe University and College AdmissionsService tariff was worth 300 points.

The Physiotherapy Group still requiresapplicants to gain 300 points but thesecan be made up in the following way: one12-unit award (the old GNVQ) of 200points, or two 6-unit awards (the old A-levels) totalling 200 points, plus another100 points.

At least 100 points have to be in ascientific discipline, reflecting the fund-amental nature of the course.

In this way applicants can match theacademic criteria in several different ways.For example an applicant could achievetwo Cs at A-level equalling 260 points,plus a C at AS-level equalling 40 points, to make up the required 300 points. The admissions team believed that thisflexibility would allow for admission of abroader range of applicants.

Criteria Assessment FormThe second change to the process was theintroduction of a specific form stating theacademic and personal criteria to beassessed (fig 3). The member of staff whoassesses the form has a series of checkboxes and a final section for acceptanceor rejection. This form is added to theapplicant’s University and CollegeAdmissions Service form, so any query inrelation to the form could be answered as objectively as possible, based on the information from the form. Teammembers are briefed on the use of this form and given guidelines for theinterpretation of the applicants’ personalstatements.

From the evidence that was reviewed, itappeared that academic achievementalone, as a predictor of successfulcompletion of health-related courses, is adebatable and inconclusive issue.Although the course team continues to

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 694

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

695Scholarly paper

Name UCAS no

Qualification Requirement Yes No

School leavers academicGCSE *Minimum of 5 passes at one sitting

*Includes either combined or individual sciences plus maths and English language*Normally should be at grade B or above

and one ofA/AS/GNVQ level *300 points to include at least:

one12-unit award of 200 pointsortwo 6-unit awards of 200 pointsplusanother 100 points

*At least 100 points must be in a scientific discipline, eg A-level biology, human biology, chemistry, physics or mathsGNVQ - Advanced science

BTEC/EDEXCEL National *In appropriate science or technology subject*Distinction grades in final year

BTEC/EDEXCEL HNC or HND *In appropriate science or technology subject*Merit grades in final year

Irish leaving certificate *Minimum of five passes normally at grade B or above. *Include two science disciplines

Scottish Highers *Advanced Higher – 200 points including 100 points in a science discipline Plus 100 points

International Baccalaureate 30 points with grade 5 or above in two scientific disciplines*At least 1 at higher level

Mature academicAccess courses *Science or health science acceptable

*Must contain modules in biological science*Will be assessed on an individual basis

Degree course *2:2 level preferably with evidence of recent academic study, (Advised to gain relevant eg A-level biology, if previous study more than five years ago.experience between first and second degree)

Other qualifications will be assessed on individual basis following University and College Admissions Service guidelines for comparison.

PersonalShows evidence of: � A high level of interest, research and knowledge of the profession.� Work experience/shadowing in physiotherapy.� Excellent communication skills. � Ability to empathise with others.� Ability to work consistently. � Ability to integrate information and skills across different subject areas.� Ability to solve problems.� Ability to study independently and in groups.

Criminal convictionsCriminal convictions checked on University and College Admissions Service form

DecisionOffer Yes No

Reason Personal Academic

Comment

Fig 3: Admissions criteria assessment form for the new process: Entry requirements

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 695

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

696

Table 1: BSc(Hons)Physiotherapy course statistics

Old admissions process New admissions processYear of entry 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Applications and offers

No of applicants 1569 978 1174 1135 1097 1043 995

No of offers 75 77 181 150 61 90 128

Applicant information

Total 39 40 63 45 39 43 51

Female 27 36 48 39 31 32 37

Male 12 4 15 6 8 11 14

Mature 21 (53.8%) 15 (37.5%) 10 (15.9%) 6 (13.3%) 6 (15.3%) 19 (44%) 19 (37.5%)

Disabled 1 (2.5%) 2 (5%) 0 ( 0 ( 0 ( 3 (6.9%) 0 (

UK British white 33 (84.6%) 33 (82.5%) 60 (95%) 39 (86%) 36 (92%) 36 (83.7%)

Entry qualifications

A-level 24 25 53 41 31 26 26

Access 4 4 2 1 2 5 2

Other UKBTEC/NVQ 2 2 0 0 1 3 6

Overseas 1 4 1 0 1 0 2

Other 7 5 5 3 4 9 15

No record 1 0 2 0 0 0 0

Table 2: Student progression

Old admissions process New admissions process

Year of entry 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/20 2000/01Level 1

Withdrew (% of enrolled) 3 (7.7) 6 (15) 5 (8) 3 (7) 4 (10.2) 4 (9.3)

Transfer out (% of enrolled) 0 0 1 (1.6) 0 0 2 (4.6)

Repeat year (% of enrolled) 1 (2.6) 1 (2.5) 4 (6.3) 2 (4) 1 (2.5) 0

Proceed to next level (% of enrolled) 35 (89.7) 33 (82.5) 53 (84.1) 40 (89) 34 (87) 37 (86)

Year of entry 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01Level 2

Transfer in advanced standing 5 (7.7) 0 0 0 0 0

Withdrew (% of enrolled) 2 (5) 1 (3) 1 (1.9) 0 2 (5.8)

Transfer out 0 0 0 0 0

Repeat year (% of enrolled) 0 0 0 0 0

Proceed to next level (% of enrolled) 38 (95) 32 (97) 52 (98.1) 40 (100) 32 (94)

Year of entry 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01Level 3

Transfer in advanced standing 0 0 0 0

Withdrew 0 0 0 0

Transfer out 0 0 0 0

Repeat year 0 0 0 0

Award gained (% of enrolled) 38 (100) 32 (100) 52 (100) 40 (100)

NB Full cohort statistics were not available at the time of submission of this article

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 696

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

697Scholarly paper

rely on these qualifications as part of theadmissions process, it is continuing tolook at other ways of developing strategiesto reduce attrition rates and enhance ahigh-quality student experience throughtheir success: for example, standardisedlearning styles assessment both beforeand after admission and the possibility ofusing application essays for admissionpurposes (Schmaltz et al, 1990).

There are, however, many argumentsagainst the new system because it is morecumbersome and labour-intensive interms of staff time, commitment andresources than the one it has replaced. It has been found that the new pointssystem and use of criteria-based assess-ment forms has increased the assess-ment time and this will be an issue fordebate in the future.

This new process will shortly bereviewed as the first cohort of the newadmissions process qualified in summer2002 and the results can now beevaluated. This review will involvefeedback from staff and students and willbe formally discussed at the coursecommittee meetings which involve servicestakeholders such as users, managers andclinical educators. Progress of thestudents who were selected using this newprocess will be assessed and compared tosimilar cohorts who were selected usingthe former process. However, on aninterim analysis, it appears from table 1that applications generally remain muchthe same. The numbers of offers madevaries with the number of applicationsand places available each year.

Table 1 also shows that the numbers ofmale and female students also remainedabout the same and the figures alsoreflect the high volume of young femaleapplicants. The number of maturestudents has increaded, which may be afairer reflection of the applicant pool.

The new process appears to be att-racting applicants with a greater range ofentry qualifications. The ‘other’ categoryin table 1 includes those applicants withdegree or access qualifications, reflectingthe increase in mature students.

Table 2 shows progression for the firstyear of the new course. So far the progressstatistics are not significantly different butdo not reflect the final result for the firstcohort from the new selection process.

ConclusionWe appreciate that many aspects ofwidening participation are not trulytackled by this new process because it maybe regarded as only a different method ofprocessing the same available pool ofapplicants. It has thrown up a number of new issues which will need furtherexamination during the full review:

� Staff input and resourcing need to befully explored. It does appear thatincreased amounts of time are nowspent on screening the University andCollege Admissions Service forms,particularly with the new points system and criteria-based assessmentform. However it is unclear as towhether this is less than the time spentplanning and conducting theinterviewing process.

� In terms of evaluating the process thenew points system is a confoundingfactor, as is that of the newBSc(Hons)Physiotherapy course whichwas validated to begin at the same timeas this new selection procedure wasimplemented (1999/2000). These mayinfluence issues around academicprogress and student retention.

� There may be too many confoundingfactors to enable correlation at anystage between success on the part ofthe students and no interviews.

The admissions team continues to thinkof methods to support the government’sand the university's policy of wideningparticipation, but is also aware of theneed of the physiotherapy profession tomake itself more attractive to under-represented groups. The process outlinedin this paper aims to be the first step inthis direction.

References

Agho, A, Mosley, B and Williams, A (1999). ‘A national survey of current admissionpractices in selected allied health educationalprograms’, Journal of Allied Health, 28, 1, 8-14.

Aldrich, C (1987). ‘Psychiatric interviews andpsychological tests as predictors of medicalstudents’ success’, Journal of Medical Education,62, 8, 658-664.

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 697

Physiotherapy November 2002/vol 88/no 11

698

Key Messages

� Interviewing forprospectivehealthcare studentsis labour intensiveand fraught withmany problemsboth for theapplicants and theadmissions team.

� Interviewing as aselection methodmay actuallydisadvantage thevery candidates the physiotherapy profession is trying to recruit to become thephysiotherapists of the future and be morerepresentative ofthe population as a whole.

� Further workneeds to beundertaken byphysiotherapyeducators todevelop moreobjective processesto screenapplicants.

Brown, B, Carpio, B and Roberts, J (1991).‘The use of an autobiographical letter in thenursing admissions process: Initial reliabilityand validity’, Canadian Journal of NursingResearch, 23, 2, 9-19.

Edwards, J, Johnson, E and Molidor, J B(1990). ‘The interview in the admissionprocess’, Academic Medicine, 65, 3, 167-177.

Ehrenfeld, M and Tabak, N (2000). ‘Value of admission interviews in selecting ofundergraduate nursing students’, Journal ofNursing Management, 8, 2, 101-106.

Ewan, C and Melville, P (1982). ‘Interviews of medical school entrants: To what purpose?’ Medical Journal of Australia,4, 2, 5, 233-236.

Feil, D, Kristain, M and Mitchell, N (1998).‘Older medical students’ performances atMcGill University’, Academic Medicine, 73, 1, 98-100.

Feletti, G, Sanson-Fisher, R and Vidler, M(1985). ‘Evaluating a new approach toselecting medical students’, Medical Education,19, 4, 276-284.

Gabard, D, Porzio, R, Oxford, T and Braun, R(1997). ‘Admission interviews: Questions ofutility and cost in Masters of Physical Therapyprograms in the United States’, PhysiotherapyResearch International, 2, 3, 135-149.

Green, A and Waterfield, J (1997). ‘Admissionand progression trends in physiotherapyundergraduate education’, Physiotherapy, 83, 9,472-479.

Hoad Reddick, G and Macfarlane, T V (1999).‘Organising the introduction of and evaluatinginterviewing in an admissions system’,European Journal of Dental Education, 3, 4, 172-179.

Holt, T B and Dunlevy, C (1992). ‘The use of pre-admission criteria to predictacademic success in a four-year respiratorycare curriculum’, Respiratory Care, 37, 5, 439-443.

Kerr, K (1985). ‘Pre-entry requirements andacademic performance in primary degreecourses in physiotherapy at UlsterPolytechnic’, Physiotherapy, 71, 468-471.

Leeds Metropolitan University (1999). Strategy for Widening Participation and LifelongLearning, 1999-2003, LMU.

Leeds Metropolitan University (2000). Reviewof the Corporate Plan 2000-2004 (internet).Available from:< http://www.lmu.ac.uk/cao/cp-review.htm> (accessed August 7, 2002)

Lewis, M (1999). ‘Physiotherapy: Does the roleof the physiotherapist in the treatment ofsports injuries influence application tophysiotherapy programmes? Report’, LeedsMetropolitan University, unpublished.

Marquart, J, Franco, K and Carroll, B (1990).‘The influence of applicants’ genders onmedical school interviews’, Academic Medicine,65, 6, 410-411.

Mitchell, G, Mitchell, D and McGregor, M(1987). ‘Selection of medical students: Areinterview evaluations consistent?’ South AfricanMedical Journal, 20, 12, 774-776.

Morris, J and Farmer, A (1999). ‘Title ofarticle??’, Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 15,3, 165-173.

National Committee of Inquiry into HigherEducation (1997). Higher Education in theLearning Society (The Dearing Report). HMSO.

Nayer, M (1992). ‘Admission criteria forentrance to physiotherapy schools: How tochoose among many applicants’, PhysiotherapyCanada, 44, 3, 41-46.

Payton, O (1997). ‘A meta-analysis of theliterature on admissions criteria as predictionsof academic performance in physical therapyeducation in the United States and Canada’,Physiotherapy Canada, 49, 2, 97-102,

Powis, D, Neame, R, Bristow, T and Murphy, L(1988). ‘The objective structured interview formedical student selection’, British MedicalJournal (clinical research edition), 12, 296, 765-768.

Rikard Bell, G, Marshall, E and Chekaluk, E(1991). ‘Academic performance of mature age and other students in a physiotherapyprogramme’, Journal of Allied Health, 20, 2, 107-117.

Schmaltz, G, Rahr, R and Allen, R (1990). ‘The use of pre-admission data to predictlevels of success in selected allied healthstudents’, Occupational Therapy Journal ofResearch, 10, 6, 367-376.

Scott, A, Chase, L, Lefkowitz, R et al (1995). ‘A national survey of admissions criteria andprocesses in selected health professions’,Journal of Allied Health, 24, 2, 95-107.

Shaw, D, Martz, D, Lancaster, C and Sade, R(1995). ‘Influence of medical schoolapplicants’ demographic and cognitivecharacteristics on interviewers’ ratings of non-cognitive traits’, Academic Medicine, 70, 6, 532-536.

Universities UK (2001). Wideningparticipation (internet). Available from: < http://www.universities uk.ac.uk/insight/wpstatement.htm> (Accessed 21st March 2002)

Willer, B, Keill, S and Isada, C (1984). ‘Surveyof US and Canadian medical schools onadmissions and psychiatrically at-risk students’,Journal of Medical Education, 59, 12, 928-936.

Youdas, J, Bogard, C and Suman, V (1996).‘Level of intra-team agreement on candidatescores in a structured interview process’,Journal of Allied Health, 25, 4, 303-313.

688-698Lewis 23/10/02 12:13 am Page 698