Talk:Casper (admissions test)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

  • A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (August 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Who is this referring to? Captain108 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, the article refers to a conflict of interest with the authors and school, yet the references cited provide no proof for this. If this is not mentioned I will delete it. Captain108 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The bot is referring to you and several other authors from Altus and McMaster. The references pointing to conflict of interest seem very clear. They show the authors of the paper are also company owner of Altus = conflict of interest. Additionally, the company's address is at McMaster, which is a part owner of the company = conflict of interest. And the authors are researchers at McMaster University. Given the fact that the company is for-profit the conflict of interest seems clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterseniorkt (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is being hijacked by someone with a close association with the topic and an interest in publishing biased information to denigrate both the CASPer test and Altus Assessments to some end, perhaps a would be competitor. This isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia and the content of this article should be viewed with skepticism. Peer reviewed articles are being deleted my Masterseniorkt and prejudicial statements added that aren't neutral fact. They are unsupported and unsubstantiated claims about the company and tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.117.238 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith D - can you look at protecting this page further to prevent disruptive editing by users? There is neutral information being deleted here by some users and replaced by less useful biased opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalbird 001 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 09 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Disruptive Editing[edit]

Can someone protect this page? Peer reviewed articles are being deleted along with other neutral info and replaced by unsupported opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalbird 001 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2017[edit]

Masterseniorkt (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles cited are biased. Although they are "reviewed", they suffer the following problems:

1) They are written by company directors that is profiting from selling CASPer. Harold Reiter and Kelly Dore are the authors of these papers and they are both company directors as indicated in this company directory: https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=9025014 As such all these articles are biased opinions.

2) The articles are not peer reviewed. The first one appears in "supplemental" section of a journal that's not peer reviewed.

3) The authors continue to hide the fact that a university NOSM used the test for one cycle only and abandoned it, rather they keep trying to change the language for promotional purposes.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You talk a lot about conflicts of interest, but how about disclosing yours Masterseniorkt? Are you associated, in any form, with any company that sells products or services related to, or in competition with, the CASPer test? Totalbird 001 (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this article[edit]

This article is biased and the references either do no meet the Wikipedia standard and/or they are not independent of the subject matter.

All references have an association with the creator of CASPer, it's originating university (McMaster) or the company that is selling CASPer (Altus Assessments Inc.)

As such this article should be removed.

Additionally, the article has been going through heavy disruptive editing and biased language by individuals with direct connections to the subject matter and Altus Assessments Inc.

Here are some examples:

The two articles cited are biased. Although they are claimed to be "reviewed", they suffer the following problems:

1) They are both written by company directors that is profiting from selling CASPer. Harold Reiter and Kelly Dore are the authors of these papers and they are both company directors as indicated in this company directory: https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=9025014 As such all these articles are biased opinions.

2) The articles are not peer reviewed. The first one appears in "supplemental" section of a journal that's not peer reviewed.

3) The authors continue to hide the fact that a university NOSM used the test for one cycle only and abandoned it, rather they keep trying to change the language for promotional purposes.


The IP user "141.117.117.238" and the editor "Totalbird" are the same individual and the IP address points to DMZ at Ryerson University, which is where Altus Assessment Inc. has offices. (https://dmz.ryerson.ca/startup_profile/altus-assessments-inc/)

Can someone please remove the article and entry altogether or alternatively include unbiased tone including a disclaimer that all references and publications are connected to this entry and that the claims shouldn't be taken seriously?

Masterseniorkt (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2017[edit]

Masterseniorkt (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Train2104 (t • c) 15:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Université Laval to use francophone version of CASPer in 2017[edit]

"Due to the work stoppage of members of the Union of Employees of Laval University, the Faculty of Medicine is not in a position to use the MEM as a selection tool for its candidates for admission 2017. Given the importance of assessing the candidates' non-cognitive qualities, the University Council, at its meeting on March 7, approved that the MEM be replaced by the French-language version of the CASPer"

http://www.fmed.ulaval.ca/les-programmes-detudes/etudes-en-medecine/doctorat-de-1ercycle-en-medecine/admission/

In a recent email to candidates: The selection of candidates for the MD program at Université Laval will be based on an equal weighting of academic excellence (50%) and the result obtained from the CASPer (50 %). This test will therefore have the same weighting as that envisaged for the MEMs. Only candidates initially selected on the basis of the quality of the academic record will be invited to the CASPer.

From the FAQ: Should the strike be stopped at Université Laval, will the admission process change again? No. The changes to the admission procedure for the Fall 2017 session, which is the replacement of the MEM by the online TECT, as approved by the University Council at its meeting on 7 March, will not be changed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones1V1 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nursing schools[edit]

Can someone add dalhouse 2018) to the list of nursing schools that use this? https://www.dal.ca/academics/programs/undergraduate/nursing/program-overview/CASPer-requirement.html is a source for that. thanks-Bor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.81.36 (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2017[edit]

Add the Robert Larner MD College of Medicine at the University of Vermont to the list of medical schools that require this test for admission 71.161.120.229 (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cocohead781 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

Hello, my name is Joshua Moskowitz. I work for Acuity Insights (formerly Altus Assessments), the organization which builds and administers the Casper test. I have some edits to request for this article in order to add more information and resources, and to improve the accuracy and objectivity of the article. I tried to make the suggested edits as concise and clear as possible, but I am happy to provide more context or edit them further, if needed.

I have a total of 6 requests:

  1. Source [9] is a self-published source, a blog posted on the website “Science-Based Medicine”. To the best of my knowledge, the author is not a subject matter expert in the field of health professions education or admissions. Please remove the sentences “Braden MacBeth criticised CASPer on Science-Based Medicine for lack of transparency, flawed studies and a conflict of interest. MacBeth concludes “CASPer should not be incorporated into the medical school admissions process” as it references a self-published source. Instead, please add the following statements and recent citations that reflect third-party, peer-reviewed research on Casper:

    “A study in 2022 used an adapted version of Casper to measure personal and professional characteristics of applicants to a midwifery program in Hamburg, Germany. The study found that Casper’s internal Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.72, did not correlate with academic performance in the 1st semester. The test was deemed by candidates as a good alternative to interviews and an appropriate balance to cognitive abilities criteria. Casper had an overall evaluation of 7.7 (SD = 1.7, range 1-10).[1]

    Another study in 2022 investigated whether Casper was associated with professionalism lapses in five graduating cohorts from 2014-2018 in the Undergraduate MD Program in the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University. The study found that Casper scores measured at admissions were not associated with referrals to the Academic Progress Committee for professionalism reasons during the program (i.e., pertaining to violations of the code of conduct for medical students and practitioners).[2]”
  2. Please replace source [2], which currently goes to a broken webpage, with: [3]
  3. Please replace source [3], which currently goes to an irrelevant webpage, with: [4]
  4. Please change the title of the wikipedia article to “Casper”; “CASPer” refers to an earlier acronym of the assessment.
  5. Please change the statement “The test, which is a form of situational judgment test, has 12 sections that either consist of video- or word-based scenarios, based on real-life situations” to “Casper is a situational judgment test that consists of video- and word-based scenarios that are based on real-life situations.” This statement change request ensures readers are provided with the most up to date information.
  6. Sources [5] and [6] used to support the statement below do not provide any relevant information. They may also be outdated: “CASPer was piloted by Northern Ontario School of Medicine in the 2014 application cycle. In 2015 the test was adopted by three medical schools: the University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and New York Medical College.”

It seems like some of the information in the current article is quite old (circa 2017). Do let me know if I can provide any further current information. I have refrained from doing so due to the conflict of interest, but I am happy to share more resources and references which can be reviewed by objective parties.

References

  1. ^ Groene, O. R., Knorr, M., Vogel, D., Hild, C., & Hampe, W. (2022). “Reliability and validity of new online selection tests for midwifery students”. Midwifery, 106, 103245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2021.103245
  2. ^ Barber, C., Burgess, R., Mountjoy, M., Whyte, R., Vanstone, M., & Grierson, L. (2022). “Associations between admissions factors and the need for remediation”. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 27(2), 475-489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10097-8
  3. ^ https://experts.mcmaster.ca/display/reiterh
  4. ^ https://experts.mcmaster.ca/display/dore

Jbmoskow (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I think keeping the criticism from Science-Based Medicine is correct, because it is valid and its is a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I have not looked at the two new studies and checked if the proposed summary represents the studies and if the studies should be included in the article.
  2. Done.
  3. Done.
  4. A reference would be good to have, to also list it in the article with the old capitalization.
  5. I am unsure if the article should mention both the old and the new test or just the new test.
  6. I added Archived versions of the links. If the Information is indeed outdated, it should be phrased in past tense.
Nuretok (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nuretok, thank you for for addressing the three requests. To follow up with you on the other requests:
1. Thank you for pointing out that Science-Based Medicine is considered a reliable source. I still think it would be appropriate to include more peer-reviewed academic sources in this article. There are at least half a dozen peer-reviewed publications that have examined Casper. I think citing at least some of them would greatly improve the quality of the article.
4. There was no official announcement of the name change as far as I can locate. We rolled out the new spelling with a rebranding of our website. If you look at our Twitter page you'll see that on October 5, 2020 we used the new spelling for the first time: https://twitter.com/TakeAcuity/status/1313153981624053763?cxt=HHwWhsC7odilobkkAAAA You can also see that on our applicant-facing website we use the updated spelling: https://acuityinsights.app/casper/ Please let me know if this is sufficient or I can ask someone from our Marketing team if there's a more explicit statement we released on the name change.
5. I would say it is the exact same test. Our team occasionally changes the numbers of sections on the test. Given that, rather than constantly needing to keep this page updated with the correct number of sections, I thought it would be more prudent to just leave out the number of sections. Jbmoskow (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Independent studies would be best or at least someone independent that summarizes them.
4. Done.
5. OK, I misunderstood that. Thanks for the explanation. Done. Nuretok (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fulfilling those additional requests.
To follow up on the first request, is it possible that you or another independent editor can summarize the research evidence on the validity of Casper for use in medical admissions? As you said independent studies would be best.
Currently, I do not think the article is neutral and gives undue weight[1] to the viewpoint that Casper is not a valid test, given the inclusion of Source [9] as the sole piece of research evidence in the article. Jbmoskow (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Casper_(admissions_test)&oldid=1206567808"