OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to revise the target pattern in food guidance system for adolescents' balanced menu planning. METHODS: The food groups in the target pattern were divided into detailed food items, and intake number were assigned to each food items based on the revised standard food composition table. The validity of revised target pattern was examined. Menu planning according to the revised target pattern was made available to 305 male and female middle school students and the nutritional assessment of the menu plan were carried out using SPSS WIN 12.0. RESULTS: The energy contents, energy contribution ratios of carbohydrate, fat, and protein, and 4 minerals' and 6 vitamins' contents of the revised target pattern were adequate. The average energy contents of the menu planned according to revised target pattern were 400~500 kcal higher than that of the revised target pattern when the revised standard food composition was applied. The energy contribution ratios of fat were 28.9%, close to maximum of acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR) (30%), and that of carbohydrate were 54.5%, lower than minimum of AMDR (55%). The nutrient adequacy ratios (NARs) of calcium and vitamin C were less than 1.0. According to index of nutritional quality (INQ) of food items, kimchi, milkdairy products, and soybean curd were energy efficient source for calcium, kimchi, fruit, vegetable and seaweed were energy efficient source for vitamin C, with INQ of food items were higher or close to 2.0. Kimchi was the best energy efficient source of calcium and vitamin C. CONCLUSIONS: Revised target pattern based on the adolescent's foods intake was not good enough for balanced menu planning by adolescents, because what they ate and what they wanted to eat were very much different. Detailed guidance for food selection is necessary in each food items.
Adolescent ; Ascorbic Acid ; Calcium ; Female ; Food Preferences ; Fruit ; Humans ; Male ; Menu Planning ; Nutrition Assessment ; Nutritive Value ; Seaweed ; Soybeans ; Vegetables

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the overall operational status of medical school admission interview evaluations in South Korea and explore the operational experience of universities conducting interview evaluations. Methods: This study used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Through a nationwide survey and data collection from 39 medical schools, the quantitative analysis explored interview evaluations procedures, the purpose of the interview evaluations, and the competencies expected of medical school freshmen. Concurrently, qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions with 12 professors from 10 medical schools, providing in-depth insights into the operational experiences and challenges faced during interview evaluations. Results: In the quantitative data, interview evaluations were most prevalent in the “comprehensive school records screening” for rolling admissions (85.5%), but less common in regular admissions (18.6%). Private schools (64.2%) showed a statistically significant higher proportion of interview admissions than public schools (11.1%) in the “high school grades focused admission” (p<0.01). Metropolitan areas (50.0%) conducted interview evaluations more frequently than non-metropolitan areas (11.1%) in the “College Scholastic Ability Test-focused admissions” (p<0.05). In the qualitative data, professors recognize the dominant role of “negative selection” in filtering out unsuitable candidates. Challenges in maintaining a consistent evaluator pool and team-based question development were acknowledged. Strategies, such as seeking student feedback for question improvement and conducting study meetings for interviewer preparation are essential. Conclusion This study illuminates the operation of admissions interview evaluations in South Korea, revealing variations across regions and admissions types. These findings offer insights for enhancing medical school admission processes, guiding future research and policy.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the overall operational status of medical school admission interview evaluations in South Korea and explore the operational experience of universities conducting interview evaluations. Methods: This study used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Through a nationwide survey and data collection from 39 medical schools, the quantitative analysis explored interview evaluations procedures, the purpose of the interview evaluations, and the competencies expected of medical school freshmen. Concurrently, qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions with 12 professors from 10 medical schools, providing in-depth insights into the operational experiences and challenges faced during interview evaluations. Results: In the quantitative data, interview evaluations were most prevalent in the “comprehensive school records screening” for rolling admissions (85.5%), but less common in regular admissions (18.6%). Private schools (64.2%) showed a statistically significant higher proportion of interview admissions than public schools (11.1%) in the “high school grades focused admission” (p<0.01). Metropolitan areas (50.0%) conducted interview evaluations more frequently than non-metropolitan areas (11.1%) in the “College Scholastic Ability Test-focused admissions” (p<0.05). In the qualitative data, professors recognize the dominant role of “negative selection” in filtering out unsuitable candidates. Challenges in maintaining a consistent evaluator pool and team-based question development were acknowledged. Strategies, such as seeking student feedback for question improvement and conducting study meetings for interviewer preparation are essential. Conclusion This study illuminates the operation of admissions interview evaluations in South Korea, revealing variations across regions and admissions types. These findings offer insights for enhancing medical school admission processes, guiding future research and policy.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the overall operational status of medical school admission interview evaluations in South Korea and explore the operational experience of universities conducting interview evaluations. Methods: This study used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Through a nationwide survey and data collection from 39 medical schools, the quantitative analysis explored interview evaluations procedures, the purpose of the interview evaluations, and the competencies expected of medical school freshmen. Concurrently, qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions with 12 professors from 10 medical schools, providing in-depth insights into the operational experiences and challenges faced during interview evaluations. Results: In the quantitative data, interview evaluations were most prevalent in the “comprehensive school records screening” for rolling admissions (85.5%), but less common in regular admissions (18.6%). Private schools (64.2%) showed a statistically significant higher proportion of interview admissions than public schools (11.1%) in the “high school grades focused admission” (p<0.01). Metropolitan areas (50.0%) conducted interview evaluations more frequently than non-metropolitan areas (11.1%) in the “College Scholastic Ability Test-focused admissions” (p<0.05). In the qualitative data, professors recognize the dominant role of “negative selection” in filtering out unsuitable candidates. Challenges in maintaining a consistent evaluator pool and team-based question development were acknowledged. Strategies, such as seeking student feedback for question improvement and conducting study meetings for interviewer preparation are essential. Conclusion This study illuminates the operation of admissions interview evaluations in South Korea, revealing variations across regions and admissions types. These findings offer insights for enhancing medical school admission processes, guiding future research and policy.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the overall operational status of medical school admission interview evaluations in South Korea and explore the operational experience of universities conducting interview evaluations. Methods: This study used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Through a nationwide survey and data collection from 39 medical schools, the quantitative analysis explored interview evaluations procedures, the purpose of the interview evaluations, and the competencies expected of medical school freshmen. Concurrently, qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions with 12 professors from 10 medical schools, providing in-depth insights into the operational experiences and challenges faced during interview evaluations. Results: In the quantitative data, interview evaluations were most prevalent in the “comprehensive school records screening” for rolling admissions (85.5%), but less common in regular admissions (18.6%). Private schools (64.2%) showed a statistically significant higher proportion of interview admissions than public schools (11.1%) in the “high school grades focused admission” (p<0.01). Metropolitan areas (50.0%) conducted interview evaluations more frequently than non-metropolitan areas (11.1%) in the “College Scholastic Ability Test-focused admissions” (p<0.05). In the qualitative data, professors recognize the dominant role of “negative selection” in filtering out unsuitable candidates. Challenges in maintaining a consistent evaluator pool and team-based question development were acknowledged. Strategies, such as seeking student feedback for question improvement and conducting study meetings for interviewer preparation are essential. Conclusion This study illuminates the operation of admissions interview evaluations in South Korea, revealing variations across regions and admissions types. These findings offer insights for enhancing medical school admission processes, guiding future research and policy.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify challenges and potential improvements in Korea's medical education accreditation process according to the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019). Meta-evaluation was conducted to survey the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders, including self-assessment committee members, site visit committee members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using surveys sent to 40 medical schools. The 332 participants included self-assessment committee members, site visit team members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance and the chi-square test were used to analyze and compare opinions on medical education accreditation between the categories of participants. Results: Site visit committee members placed greater importance on the necessity of accreditation than faculty members. A shared positive view on accreditation’s role in improving educational quality was seen among self-evaluation committee members and professors. Administrative staff highly regarded the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation’s reliability and objectivity, unlike the self-evaluation committee members. Site visit committee members positively perceived the clarity of accreditation standards, differing from self-assessment committee members. Administrative staff were most optimistic about implementing standards. However, the accreditation process encountered challenges, especially in duplicating content and preparing self-evaluation reports. Finally, perceptions regarding the accuracy of final site visit reports varied significantly between the self-evaluation committee members and the site visit committee members. Conclusion This study revealed diverse views on medical education accreditation, highlighting the need for improved communication, expectation alignment, and stakeholder collaboration to refine the accreditation process and quality.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify challenges and potential improvements in Korea's medical education accreditation process according to the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019). Meta-evaluation was conducted to survey the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders, including self-assessment committee members, site visit committee members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using surveys sent to 40 medical schools. The 332 participants included self-assessment committee members, site visit team members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance and the chi-square test were used to analyze and compare opinions on medical education accreditation between the categories of participants. Results: Site visit committee members placed greater importance on the necessity of accreditation than faculty members. A shared positive view on accreditation’s role in improving educational quality was seen among self-evaluation committee members and professors. Administrative staff highly regarded the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation’s reliability and objectivity, unlike the self-evaluation committee members. Site visit committee members positively perceived the clarity of accreditation standards, differing from self-assessment committee members. Administrative staff were most optimistic about implementing standards. However, the accreditation process encountered challenges, especially in duplicating content and preparing self-evaluation reports. Finally, perceptions regarding the accuracy of final site visit reports varied significantly between the self-evaluation committee members and the site visit committee members. Conclusion This study revealed diverse views on medical education accreditation, highlighting the need for improved communication, expectation alignment, and stakeholder collaboration to refine the accreditation process and quality.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify challenges and potential improvements in Korea's medical education accreditation process according to the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019). Meta-evaluation was conducted to survey the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders, including self-assessment committee members, site visit committee members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using surveys sent to 40 medical schools. The 332 participants included self-assessment committee members, site visit team members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance and the chi-square test were used to analyze and compare opinions on medical education accreditation between the categories of participants. Results: Site visit committee members placed greater importance on the necessity of accreditation than faculty members. A shared positive view on accreditation’s role in improving educational quality was seen among self-evaluation committee members and professors. Administrative staff highly regarded the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation’s reliability and objectivity, unlike the self-evaluation committee members. Site visit committee members positively perceived the clarity of accreditation standards, differing from self-assessment committee members. Administrative staff were most optimistic about implementing standards. However, the accreditation process encountered challenges, especially in duplicating content and preparing self-evaluation reports. Finally, perceptions regarding the accuracy of final site visit reports varied significantly between the self-evaluation committee members and the site visit committee members. Conclusion This study revealed diverse views on medical education accreditation, highlighting the need for improved communication, expectation alignment, and stakeholder collaboration to refine the accreditation process and quality.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify challenges and potential improvements in Korea's medical education accreditation process according to the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019). Meta-evaluation was conducted to survey the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders, including self-assessment committee members, site visit committee members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using surveys sent to 40 medical schools. The 332 participants included self-assessment committee members, site visit team members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance and the chi-square test were used to analyze and compare opinions on medical education accreditation between the categories of participants. Results: Site visit committee members placed greater importance on the necessity of accreditation than faculty members. A shared positive view on accreditation’s role in improving educational quality was seen among self-evaluation committee members and professors. Administrative staff highly regarded the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation’s reliability and objectivity, unlike the self-evaluation committee members. Site visit committee members positively perceived the clarity of accreditation standards, differing from self-assessment committee members. Administrative staff were most optimistic about implementing standards. However, the accreditation process encountered challenges, especially in duplicating content and preparing self-evaluation reports. Finally, perceptions regarding the accuracy of final site visit reports varied significantly between the self-evaluation committee members and the site visit committee members. Conclusion This study revealed diverse views on medical education accreditation, highlighting the need for improved communication, expectation alignment, and stakeholder collaboration to refine the accreditation process and quality.