OPTOMETRY ADMISSION INTERVIEWS

250 Pages·1999·16.45 MB·English

OPTOMETRY ADMISSION INTERVIEWS: A CASE STüDY
OF PARTICIPANT EXPECTAWONS AND EXPERIENCES
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requitements
for the degme of Doctor of Philosophy,
.
beparûnent of Theory and Policy Studies in Education,
Ontario Institut8 for Studies in Eduwtion of the
University of Toronto
-@ Copyright by Ma- Marie Spafford 1998
1+1 Nationai Library B i i u en ationale
ofanada du Canada
Ayisiions and Acquisitions et
B~bliographicS eMces seMces bibliographiques
395 WeiIingtm Street 385, ~e WeElingtOn
-ON K1AûN4 OttawaON KIAûN4
Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde une licence non
exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la
National Lïbfary of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduce, loan, distribute or sel reproduire, prêter, distriiuer ou
copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
paper or electronic formats. la forme de micdïche/nlm, de
reproduction.sur papier ou sur format
électronique.
The author retains ownefship of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du
copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimes
reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son
permission. autorisation.
The use of an admission interview by heaIthcare professional prograrns is widespread, yet the predictive
ability of this selection twl has been found to be low due, in part, to the presence of numerous design
flaws. This study of a Canadian optometsr program at the University of Waterloo (UW) exarnined its
admission interview f rom the perspective of its participants: the inteNewers and the applicants. A survey
was developed through a literature review, a series of research inte~.ews,a nd a pilot test. The survey
collected demographic information and participant perceptions relating to the purpose of and the
candidate qualities assessed by an ideaf optometry admission committee, an ideal optometry interview,
and the UW interview. Questions were also posed about the future of the UW interview. The
questionnaire was sent in 1996 to ail interviewed candidates (157) and al1 interviewers (23). The response
rate was 71.7%. Principal component analysis was perfomed to reduce the data into thematic
components. lndependent and paired t-tests were used to compare the components. Applicants and
interviewers shared a common vision of the ideal interview's purpose and content. The importance of this
finding was discussed in tens of a symbolic interacüonist approach. That is, through social interaction,
these participants had attached a common meaning to admission interviews. Applicants and interviewers
held significantly different views of the UW interview's purpose and content. Their experiences with the
UW interview were also significantly different than their expectations of an ideal interview. Applicants
judged their interview experience based largely on the interviewers' behavior while interviewers had the
benefit of knowing more about the program's admission process. The greatest perceived difference
between the UW interview and the ideal interview regarded clarifying candidate information. The inability
of the UW interview to provide this function in the presence of a strong desire to do so was interpreted as
a major determinant in creating a crisis of confidence in the UW interview. This descriptive study provides
an approach for the program's administrators to re-evaluate the interview's purpose and content and
offers an explanation for the interview's longe*.
Optometry Admission Interviews: A Case Study of Participant Expectations and Experiences
Doctor of Philosophy, 19 98
Marlee Marie Spafford
Theory and Policy Studies in Education, Ontario lnstitute for Studies in EducationNniversity of Toronto
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge a number of ind~dualsw ho have provided invaluable support to me as I have
traveled dong the path leading to the completion of my dissertation. First of ail, I would like to thank my
examination committee: Dr. George Geis (supervisor), Dr. Linda Muzzin (interna1 appraiser), Dr. Mic hael
Skolnik, Dr. Glen Jones, Dr. David Hunt (outside departmental examiner) and Dr. Ron Smith (extemal
examiner). ln particular, I have benefited from the guidance of my supervisor, George Geis, who has
helped steer me through the proceçs, develop my writing and thinking. and support me ernotionally. 1 am
also indebted to Linda Munin and Michael Skolnik for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of
the thesis.
I would like to acknowledge staff who provided administrative assistance whether it pertained to
monitoring retumed questionnaires or providing admission data. These indiMduals included Janice Vemer
and Mary Howes at the Ontario lnstitute for Studies in EducationNniversity of Toronto (OISUUT) and
Marie Arnodeo, Marion Brown, Gary Marx and Debbie Clermont at the University of Waterloo (UW). 1
would like to thank two UW optometry students, Amy Bakelaar and Trkha Beal who worked in my
research laboratory on projects including data entry and organization. I also appreciate the statistical
advice provided by Erin Harvey (UW), Dr. Trefford Simpson (UW), Dr. Carol Westall (Hospital for Sick
ChildrenAJT) , Dr. Arthur Rothman (UT), and Susan Elgie (OISENT).
I sincerely thank the Canadian Optometric Education Tnist Fund (COETF) Awards Cornmittee for their
financial support while I was registered in the PhD program. The group supports projects that promote the
development of vision care and optometric education in Canada. My COETF awards were used to pay a
significant portion of my tuition fees. This financial aid made it possible to pursue the degree without
being under significant financial stress. COETF is supported by optometrists throughout Canada so the
award seems apt for a study about an aspect of professional gatekeeping.
Pursuing my PhD degree while maintaining rny appointment as a full-time, tenured associate professor at
the University of Waterloo has been very challenging. I am indebted to a number of my colleagues who
were quite supportive during this time. In particular, I thank Dr. Jacob Sivak, Director of the School of
Optometry. Jake Siak supported me right from the start when I indicated that I wanted to make a
dramatic change in my area of scholarship from visual eiectrophysiology to optometric education. His
support has been steadfast throughout the pursuit of rny degtee. The signifiant practical and emotional
support provided by two administrators and friends at the Schwl, Marie Amodeo and Debbie Clermont,
allowed me to balance these two actMties.
Juggling the parts of my life as student, worker, partner, famiiy member and friend has been possible only
because of the understanding and support of nurnerous friends and family, and in particular my parents,
Lorraine and Art Spafford, and my partner, Carol Westall. I very much appreciate Caro18se ncouragement
throughout my degree. Her support has been both intellwiual and emotional. In fact, 1 have spent more
hours discussing my doctoral work with Carol than any other person.
Lastly, I would like to thank the participants in this study without whom this project would not have been
possible. Over the years, the UW optometry applicants and facuity have generated within me a keen
interest in professional gatekeeping. My respect for the impressive individuals who apply to and, in some
cases, enter into the University of Waterloo, Doctor of Optometry program provides me with a sense of
the importance and impact of professional gatekeeping.
Dedication
7"' Leslie for helping me find my path and Carol for keeping me on it.
Table of Contents
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
List of Appendices xii
INTRODUCTlON 1
CHAPTER 1: CONTEXT 3
Overview of Chapter 3
The Emergence of Optometry in Canada and the United States 3
Optometry As A Profession 5
Training 5
S e ~ kTeo Society 6
lntellectual Effort 7
Certification and Organizations 7
Autonomy 7
Current Issues in Canadian Optometry 9
Case Study Setting: University of Waterloo (UW), School of Optometry 11
UW School of Optometry Admission Process 14
Admission Cornmittee 14
Application Content 15
Application Tirnelines 17
Application Costs 19
Selection Tools 20
Postsecondary Transcripts 20
Optornetry Admission Test 21
Intenn'ew 22
Confidential Assessrnent Forms (CAFs) 22
Autobiographie Sketch Profile 23
Essay 23
Admission Meeting Process 24
Investigator's Involvement In The UW Optometry Admission Process 26
Summary of Chapter 27
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 28
Overview of Chapter 28
Professional Gatekeeping 28
Admission Variables 31
lntenfiew Purpose(s) 32
Gathering Information, Clarifying Information and Making Decisions 32
Public Relations and Recruiting 36
Performance Pr ediction 37
Possible Sources Of The Interview's Limitations 41
Models of lntetview Variables and Processes 42
Interview Research Strategies 43
Similar-To-Me Effect 46
Contrast Effect 46
vi
Halo Eff ect 47
Rater Distribution Tendencies 47
lntewiewer Access To Candidate Information 49
Stereotyping and Biases 52
Gender Biases 53
Age Biases 56
Oisability Biases 57
Race Biases 58
Candidate Self-Presentation Styles and Strategies 60
Strategies for lmproving Interview Reliability and Validity 63
Key Concepts Guiding This Thesis 66
Summary of Chapter 70
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 72
Ovenriew of Chapter 72
Research Problem 72
Literature Review 72
Initial Questionnaire Development 73
Ethical Review 73
Research Interviews 73
Seeking Feedback From the Thesis Supervisor 76
Piloting The Questionnaire 77
Anal Approval Frorn the Thesis and Ethics Cornmittees 77
Suwey Participants 78
Questionnaire Distribution 78
Data Analyses 79
Questionnaire 79
Descriptive Analyses 81
Statistical Analyses 83
UW Optometry Admission Interview Policy 85
Background Admission Statistics 85
Summary of Chapter 86
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 88
Ove~ewof Chapter 88
Admission Data Analyses 88
How representative were the 1996 appiicants? 88
Yeariy Cornpansons of Admission Demographics 88
Yeariy Cornparisons of Acadernic Background 89
Yearly Compansons of Admission Performance Variables 90
UW Optometry Admission Interview Statement 91
Stated and lmplied UW Purposes and Traits 9 1
Suwey: Respondent Dernographics 91
Suw ey: Descriptive Analyses 94
Perceptions of the Interview's Purpose(s) 94
The UW Intewiew 95
The I d dnl teweiw 95
The ldeal Admission Cornmittee 96
Gmup Cornparisons 96
ldeal Interveiw versus UW lnte~~ew 97
ldeal lnte~~evewrç us Ideal Cornmittee 98
Perceptions of Candidate Trait(s) 98
The UW lntewiew 99
The Ideal Interview 1O 0
The Ideal Admission Cornmittee 101
Gmup Cornpansons 10 2
ldeal Interview versus UW lntewiew 105
ldeal Interview versus lded Cornmittee 10 6
Possible Changes to the UW Optometry Interview 10 7
Possible UW Interview Biases 10 9
Highlights of Descriptive Analyses 110
Survey: Statistical Analyses 111
Perceptions of Purpose(s) 111
Group Comparisons: The UW Interview 112
Group Cornparisons: The ldeal Interview 113
Group Comparisons: The ldeal Admission Committee 113
Summary of Significant Group Differences 114
ldeal Interview versus UW Interview 114
Ideal InteMew versus ldeal Admission Cornmittee 117
Perceptions of Candidate Trait(s) 118
Group Comparisons: The UW lntem-ew 119
Group Comparisons: The ldeal Interview 120
Group Comparisons: The Ideal Admission Cornmittee 121
Sumrnary of Significant Group Differences 121
ldeal Interview versus UW lntenhew 122
ldeal Interview versus ldeal Cornmittee 125
Possible Changes to the UW Interview 12 6
Group Cornparisons of Possible Changes 12 7
Possible UW Interview Biases: Group Differences 127
Higfilights of Statistical Analyses 128
Survey: Summary of Written Comments 129
Summary of Chapter 130
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 132
General Summary of Findings 132
The ldeal Interview 132
The UW Interview 136
ldeal Interview versus UW Interview 148
ldeal Interview versus ldeal Cornmittee 156
Possible Limitations to the Study 157
Conclusions 163
Future Directions of Study 165
Personal Reflections on the Findings of this Thesis 16 7
REFERENCES 169
List of Tables
..................... ..............................................................
Table 1.1 :G uidelines For ûffering An Interview 16
............................................................................................................
Table 13: Application Tirnelines 18
.............................................................................
Table 3.1. Group Comparison of Interview Duration 74
.....................................................................
Table 32: Six theoretical categories of purpose in stuûy 80
...................................................
Table 33: Six theoteüml categories of candidate traits in study 81
................. .....................................
Tabk 3.4. Within Group PC Compadsons: P a i dS tudent t-test 85
.............
Table 4.1 :Y eariy Admission ûernognphit Variable Cornparisons (Chi-Squared: pe0.050) 89
..............................
Table 49: Yearly Proportion of Ontario, Contract & Non-contract Applicants 89
...........................
Table 4.3. Ywrly Cornparisons of Academic Background (Chi-Squared: pc0.050) 89
..... ................. .........................
Table 4.4. Yearly Proportion of Total Postsecondary Years d
.............. ........ .
Table 45: Yeariy. Cornparisons of Admission Variables (1-way ANOVk p=û.OSO) -90
............ .................................................... .
Table 4.a. Interviewer Respondent Demo.gr a.p hic.s.. ................. .. ........... ...................................9 2
Table 4.6b. Applicant Respondent Demographics 9 2
................ .. ...........................................................
Table 4.7. Facuity's reasons for intewiewing (nS0) 93
............................. ....
Table 4.88: Candidates' beliefs of why they were granted an interview (nt1W ) 93
. ................
Table 4.9. Contract vs othet candidates' beliefs of why they were granted an interview 94
........................
Table 4.lW Group agreement level with respect to the UW interview: Purpose@) 95
.......... .. ...........
Table 410b: Group agreement level with respect to the ideal interview: Purpose@) 95
.....................
Table 4.10~. Group agreement level wÏth respect to the ideal cornmittee: Purpose@) 96
..................................... ...........
Table 4.1 la: UW interview versus ideal interview: applicant NIDS 9 7
....................... ............ .
Table 4.1 1b : UW interview versus ideal interview: interviewer NIDS ................. .. ......9... 8
Table 4.12~1. Group agreement level with respect to the UW intewiew: Traits 99
..............................
Table 412b: Group agreement kvel with respect to the ideal interview: Traits 100
...........................
Table 4.12~. Group agreement Ievel with respect to the ideal cornmittee: Traits 101
..................... .... ....
Table 4.13a. Notable grow differences in the perceptions of the UW interview 103
..........................
Table 4.13b. Notable group differences in the perceptions of the ideal interview 104
..................
Table 4.13~: Notable group differences in the perceptions of the ideal committee 104
...................... . .....................
Table 4.14a. UW interview versus ideal interview: applicant NIDS 105
............... .......... .............. ........
Table 4.i4b. UW interview versus ideal interview: interviewer NIDS 1ûô
.................
fable 4.15. Respondents' Beliefs About What Should Happen Wth The UW Interview 107
........ .............................................................
Table 4.16. Possible Changes to the UW Interview 1 0 8
...........
Table 4.17. Notable group differences in the perceptions of changes to the UW interview 108
............................................................ .......
Table 4.1 8: Possible UW optometry interview biases 1 0 9
.................................
Table 4.1 9: Principal Cornponent Analysis of The ldeal Intewiew's Purnose 1 11
.........................................
Table 4.20. Perceptions of UW Interview: Significant Group Differences 112
....... ......... . ...............
Table 4.21 : Perceptions of Ideal Interview: Significant Group Differences 113
................
Table 4.22. Percaptions of Ideal Admission Cornmittee: Significant Group Differences 114
. ......................
Table 423a: ldeal Interview vs UW Interview Purposes: Applicants & Interviewers 115
. ..................
Table 4.23b. ldeal Interview vs UW Intervhtw Purposcs: Female & Male Applicants 115
. .............
Table 4.23~. ldeal Interview vs UW Intewiew Purposes: Intemals & External Applicants 116
. .................
Table 4.23d. ldeal Interview vs. UW Interview Purposes: Contract & Other Applicants 116
......................
Table 4.24a. Ideal Interview vs Idml Cornmittee Purposes: Signifiant Differences 117
. ......................
Table 4.24b. ldeal Interview vs ldeal Cornmittee Purposes: Signifiant Differences 11 7
........................
Table 4.2525: Principal Component Aiuilysis of the Ideal Interview Candida...t.e.. T...r.a. i.ts. ....................... 119
Table 4.2626: Perceptions of UW Interview: Significant Group Differences 120
............ ..... ...................
Table 4.27. Perceptions of Ideal Interview: Significant Group Diffeences 120
................
Table 4.28. Perceptions of ldeal Admission Committee: Signlffcant Group Differences 121
. ............................
Table 4.29%. Ideal Interview vs .U W Interview Traits: Applicants & Interviewers 122
...........................
Table 4.29b. ldeai Interview vs UW Interview Traits: Female & Male Applicants 123
. ......................
Table 4.29~.i deal Interview vs .U W lntewiew Traits: Intemal & Extemal Applicants 124
........................
Table 429d: ldeal Interview vs UW Interview Traits: Contract & Other Applicants 124
. ......................... ....
Table 4.30a. Ideal Interview vs .I deal Cornmittee Traits: Significant Ditferences. ............ .. .......... 125
Tabk 4.30b. Ideal Intenriew vs ldeal Cornmittee Traits: SignMcant Differencaa 126
..................
Table 4.31: Principal Component Analysis of Possible Chanaes To The UW Interview 126