Medical school admissions can measure professional skills

A meta-analysis published in Medical Education found that professional and personal skills can be reliably measured during medical school admissions. The study focused on Casper, an assessment developed by Acuity Insights.

The research examined whether qualities such as communication, ethics, professionalism and judgment can be assessed at entry and used to predict later performance in training and clinical practice. It follows a joint requirement from AAMC, AACOM and ACGME for institutions to show they select students likely to succeed not only academically but also professionally.

Described as the largest synthesis of its kind, the paper found that admissions assessments targeting the same competencies later evaluated during training have stronger predictive value. That relationship nearly doubles when both stages are aligned.

Medical schools and residency programs have long relied on academic records, test scores and interviews to decide whom to admit. This analysis addresses a narrower question, one that has become more pressing for regulators and institutions alike: whether non-academic attributes can be measured consistently before students begin training.

Casper, the assessment at the center of the study, is an open-response situational judgment test used by more than 500 health professions programs worldwide. It asks applicants to respond by video and text to scenarios designed to probe interpersonal and professional decision-making.

Admissions shift

The findings arrive as admissions teams face growing scrutiny over how they evaluate candidates beyond grades and scientific knowledge. Accrediting bodies in the United States now expect schools to show that their selection methods identify students who can meet the professional demands of medicine, not just its academic threshold.

This increases pressure on institutions to link admissions tools to later performance. A large-scale review in a peer-reviewed journal carries weight because it shifts the debate from theory and local practice to a broader evidence base.

The analysis also arrives as artificial intelligence is changing the admissions process. Tools that can draft polished written answers or coach candidates through interview preparation have raised concerns that conventional formats may become less useful in distinguishing personal judgment, ethical reasoning and communication style.

Acuity Insights argues that an open-response format using both video and text is more resistant to AI-assisted submissions than more standardized application materials. More broadly, universities must determine not only whether applicants use AI, but whether institutions can still identify qualities central to professional practice and difficult to automate.

Wider pressure

The issue extends beyond the United States. In Canada, where policymakers have pushed to expand artificial intelligence across sectors, educational institutions are also grappling with how to adopt the technology without weakening admissions standards.

For medical schools, the stakes are especially high. Training programs are responsible for admitting students who will later work in clinical settings where judgment, conduct and communication affect patient care as directly as technical knowledge.

The study was led by an international research team, with Professor Amir H. Sam, Head of Imperial College School of Medicine, serving as lead researcher. His involvement gives the work visibility beyond North America, particularly among schools considering how to adapt their admissions systems to tougher evidence requirements.

The paper does not settle every question about selection. Admissions decisions remain multifactor judgments, and schools still must balance academic attainment, widening participation goals, structured interviews, references and other information. But the analysis strengthens the case that professional attributes can be assessed more systematically than many critics had assumed.

It also suggests that selection is only part of the picture. The strongest predictive effect appeared when admissions criteria matched the competencies later measured during training, indicating that schools may need to align entry requirements more closely with how they define success within the program.

That has operational consequences for medical educators. If regulators are asking schools to prove outcomes, institutions may need not only new admissions tools but also clearer competency frameworks, better internal assessment methods and evidence systems that connect application-stage data with performance over time.

For Acuity Insights, the publication places its Casper assessment at the center of a broader policy and education debate rather than a simple product discussion. For medical schools, the immediate question is whether the evidence is strong enough to reshape admissions practice under the standards set by AAMC, AACOM and ACGME.

The paper's core finding is that personal and professional skills measured at admission can predict how students perform in training and clinical practice. That effect is stronger when the same competencies are assessed throughout the educational pathway.