Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stumpf, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Liskin, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Stumpf, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Liskin, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Ranking Versus Voting

The Politics of Selection in a Physician Assistant Program

Steven H. Stumpf

Jack Liskin

University of Southern California

A modified ranking system proved advantageous to a more traditional voting system in guiding admissions in several unexpected areas including the (a) elimination of confounding cross talk as a selection determinant, (b) maximization of regulated discussion concerning each applicant, (c) protection of each selector's privilege to keep private his or her valuation of selection criteria, (d) elimination of ad lib procedures to break voting impasses, and (e) promotion of greater objectivity in selections. It was hypothesized that the two methods for selecting students, ranking versus voting, would yield highly similar results. In 3 proximate years, two separate lists of selected applicants were compiled; one using the ranking method and the other using the voting method. Cohen's correction for agreement of proportions (kappa) yielded coefficients at .89,. 77, and .87, respectively, all significantat p = .(0001. These findings indicated excellent agreement existed between the two selection methods. Furthernore, neithermethodcompronused the selection of disadvantaged students.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 17, No. 1, 113-122 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879401700107
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?