Dataset Information

Does the UKCAT predict performance in medical and dental school? A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

For the first time, this systematic review provides a summary of the literature exploring the relationship between performance in the UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) and assessments in undergraduate medical and dental training.

Design

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, relevant studies were identified through systematic literature searches. Electronic searches were carried out on EBSCO, EMBASE, Educational Resources Information Centre, SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge. Studies which included the predictive validity of selection criteria including some element of the UKCAT were considered.

Results

22 papers were identified for inclusion in the study. Four studies describe outcomes from dental programmes with limited results reported. 18 studies reported on relationships between the UKCAT and performance in undergraduate medical training. Of these, 15 studies reported relationships between the UKCAT cognitive tests and undergraduate medical assessments. Weak relationships (r=0.00-0.29) were observed in 14 of these studies; four studies reported some moderate relationships (r=0.30-0.49). The strongest relationships with performance in medical school were observed for the UKCAT total score and the verbal reasoning subtest. Relationships with knowledge-based assessments scores were higher than those for assessments of skills as the outcome. Relationships observed in small (single and double centre studies) were larger than those observed in multicentre studies.

Conclusion

The results indicate that UKCAT scores predict performance in medical school assessments. The relationship is generally weak, although noticeably stronger for both the UKCAT total score and the verbal reasoning subtest. There is some evidence that UKCAT continues to predict performance throughout medical school. We recommend more optimal approaches to future studies. This assessment of existing evidence should assist medical/dental schools in their evaluation of selection processes.

SUBMITTER: Greatrix R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7825260 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does the UKCAT predict performance in medical and dental school? A systematic review.

Greatrix Rachel R Nicholson Sandra S Anderson Susan S

BMJ open 20210122 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>For the first time, this systematic review provides a summary of the literature exploring the relationship between performance in the UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) and assessments in undergraduate medical and dental training.<h4>Design</h4>In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, relevant studies were identified through systematic literature searches. Electronic searches were carried out on EBSCO, EMBASE, Educational Resour ...[more]

PMID: 33483439

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether the UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) adds value to the selection process for school leaver applicants to medical and dental school, and in particular whether UKCAT can reduce the socioeconomic bias known to affect A levels.DesignCohort studySettingApplicants to 23 UK medical and dental schools in 2006.Participants9884 applicants who took the UKCAT in the UK and who achieved at least three passes at A level in their school leaving examinations (53% of all applicants).Main outcome measuresIndependent predictors of obtaining at least AAB at A level and UKCAT scores at or above the 30th centile for the cohort, for the subsections and the entire test.ResultsIndependent predictors of obtaining at least AAB at A level were white ethnicity (odds ratio 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.41 to 1.77), professional or managerial background (1.39, 1.22 to 1.59), and independent or grammar schooling (2.26, 2.02 to 2.52) (all P<0.001). Independent predictors of achieving UKCAT scores at or above the 30th centile for the whole test were male sex (odd ratio 1.48, 1.32 to 1.66), white ethnicity (2.17, 1.94 to 2.43), professional or managerial background (1.34, 1.17 to 1.54), and independent or grammar schooling (1.91, 1.70 to 2.14) (all P<0.001). One major limitation of the study was that socioeconomic status was not volunteered by approximately 30% of the applicants. Those who withheld socioeconomic status data were significantly different from those who provided that information, which may have caused bias in the analysis.ConclusionsUKCAT was introduced with a high expectation of increasing the diversity and fairness in selection for UK medical and dental schools. This study of a major subgroup of applicants in the first year of operation suggests that it has an inherent favourable bias to men and students from a higher socioeconomic class or independent or grammar schools. However, it does provide a reasonable proxy for A levels in the selection process.

Project description:The 2-hour long United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) is used by many universities in the United Kingdom as part of their selection process for undergraduate medical and dentistry degrees. We aimed to compare the performance of senior doctors in primary and secondary care and across a range of specialties, in a modified version of the medical school entrance examination-the mUKCAT. Lay people were also included in the study. Despite its widespread use, this is the first study that examines the performance of senior clinicians in the UKCAT.The study used a prospective cross-sectional design. It used mock questions from the UKCAT website to generate an mUKCAT that was anticipated to take 15?minutes to complete. In all, 167 doctors at consultant, general practitioner (GP), or specialty trainee grade and 26 lay people took part.The overall mean mUKCAT score of all participants was 2486 (69.1%). Of the total cohort, 126 (65.3%) scored above our designated threshold of 2368 and were deemed to have passed the mUKCAT. Excluding lay people, 113 (67.7%) of the 167 doctors scored above that threshold. Medical specialty was associated with overall score (P?=?0.003), with anesthetists/intensive care physicians scoring highest (n?=?20, mean score 2660) and GPs scoring lowest (n?=?38, mean score 2302). Academics outperformed nonacademics (mean score of academics, n?=?44 vs nonacademics, n?=?123: 2750 vs 2406; P?<?0.001). Those clinicians in senior management positions scored lower than those in "standard" roles (mean score of senior management, n?=?31 vs standard roles, n?=?136: 2332 vs 2534, mean difference 202, 95% confidence interval 67-337, P?=?0.004).In the situational judgement section, there was no evidence that specialty was associated with score (P?=?0.15). Academics exhibited greater situational judgement than their nonacademic colleagues (academics vs nonacademics: 69.8 vs 63.6%; P?=?0.01).The majority of senior clinicians passed our mUKCAT. Academics and anesthetists were found to be the best performers, with GPs and those in senior management positions performing the worst.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) previously piloted an assessment of 'online confidence', where candidates were asked to indicate how confident they were with their answers. This study examines the relationship between these ratings, the odds of receiving an offer to study medicine and subsequent undergraduate academic performance. DESIGN:National cohort study. SETTING:UK undergraduate medical selection. PARTICIPANTS:56?785 UKCAT candidates who sat the test between 2013 and 2016 and provided valid responses to the online confidence pilot study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Two measures of 'online confidence' were derived: the well-established 'confidence bias', and; a novel 'confidence judgement' measure, developed using Item Response Theory in order to derive a more sophisticated metric of the ability to evaluate one's own performance on a task. Regression models investigated the relationships between these confidence measures, application success and academic performance. RESULTS:Online confidence was inversely related to cognitive performance. Relative underconfidence was associated with increased odds of receiving an offer to study medicine. For 'confidence bias' this effect was independent of potential confounders (OR 1.48, 1.15 to 1.91, p=0.002). While 'confidence judgement' was also a univariable predictor of application success (OR 1.22, 1.01 to 1.47, p=0.04), it was not an independent predictor. 'Confidence bias', but not 'confidence judgement', predicted the odds of passing the first year of university at the first attempt, independently of cognitive performance, with relative underconfidence positively related to academic success (OR 3.24, 1.08 to 9.72, p=0.04). No non-linear effects were observed, suggesting no 'sweet spot' exists in relation to online confidence and the outcomes studied. CONCLUSIONS:Applicants who either appear underconfident, or are better at judging their own performance on a task, are more likely to receive an offer to study medicine. However, online confidence estimates had limited ability to predict subsequent academic achievement. Moreover, there are practical challenges to evaluating online confidence in high-stakes selection.

Dataset Information

Does the UKCAT predict performance in medical and dental school? A systematic review.

Objectives

Design

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Does the UKCAT predict performance in medical and dental school? A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets