BMAT's predictive validity for medical school performance: A retrospective cohort study.
Saved in:
| Title: | BMAT's predictive validity for medical school performance: A retrospective cohort study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Davies, Daniel J., Sam, Amir H., Murphy, Kevin G., Khan, Shahid A., Choe, Ruth, Cleland, Jennifer |
| Source: | Medical Education. Sep2022, Vol. 56 Issue 9, p936-948. 13p. 2 Charts, 3 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Retrospective studies, Academic achievement, Medical schools, Predictive validity, Longitudinal method |
| Abstract: | Background: Although used widely, there is limited evidence of the BioMedical Admissions Test's (BMAT) predictive validity and incremental validity over prior educational attainment (PEA). We investigated BMAT's predictive and incremental validity for performance in two undergraduate medical schools, Imperial College School of Medicine (ICSM), UK, and Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine), Singapore. Our secondary goal was to compare the evidence collected with published evidence relating to comparable tools. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of four ICSM (1188 students, entering 2010–2013) and three LKCMedicine cohorts (222 students, 2013–2015). We investigated associations between BMAT Section 1 ('Thinking Skills'), Section 2 ('Scientific Knowledge and Applications') and Section 3a ('Writing Task') scores, with written and clinical assessment performance across all programme years. Incremental validity was investigated over PEA (A‐levels) in a subset of ICSM students. Results: When BMAT sections were investigated independently, Section 2 scores predicted performance on all written assessments in both institutions with mainly small effect sizes (standardised coefficient ranges: ICSM: 0.08–0.19; LKCMedicine: 0.22–0.36). Section 1 scores predicted Years 5 and 6 written assessment performance at ICSM (0.09–0.14) but nothing at LKCMedicine. Section 3a scores only predicted Year 5 clinical assessment performance at ICSM with a coefficient <0.1. There were no positive associations with standardised coefficients >0.1 between BMAT performance and clinical assessment performance. Multivariable regressions confirmed that Section 2 scores were the most predictive. We found no clear evidence of incremental validity for any BMAT section scores over A‐level grades. Discussion: Schools who wish to assess scientific knowledge independently of A‐levels may find BMAT Section 2 useful. Comparison with previous studies indicates that, overall, BMAT seems less useful than comparable tools. Larger scale studies are needed. Broader questions regarding why institutions adopt certain admissions tests, including those with little evidence, need consideration. The authors use exploration of the BMAT to invite readers to reflect on why institutions adopt certain admissions tests even in the face of little utility evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: pbh DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection An: 158316849 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: BMAT's predictive validity for medical school performance: A retrospective cohort study. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Davies%2C+Daniel+J%2E%22">Davies, Daniel J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sam%2C+Amir+H%2E%22">Sam, Amir H.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Murphy%2C+Kevin+G%2E%22">Murphy, Kevin G.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Khan%2C+Shahid+A%2E%22">Khan, Shahid A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Choe%2C+Ruth%22">Choe, Ruth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cleland%2C+Jennifer%22">Cleland, Jennifer</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink>. Sep2022, Vol. 56 Issue 9, p936-948. 13p. 2 Charts, 3 Graphs. – Name: Subject Label: Subjects Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Retrospective+studies%22">Retrospective studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+achievement%22">Academic achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+schools%22">Medical schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictive+validity%22">Predictive validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+method%22">Longitudinal method</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Background: Although used widely, there is limited evidence of the BioMedical Admissions Test's (BMAT) predictive validity and incremental validity over prior educational attainment (PEA). We investigated BMAT's predictive and incremental validity for performance in two undergraduate medical schools, Imperial College School of Medicine (ICSM), UK, and Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine), Singapore. Our secondary goal was to compare the evidence collected with published evidence relating to comparable tools. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of four ICSM (1188 students, entering 2010–2013) and three LKCMedicine cohorts (222 students, 2013–2015). We investigated associations between BMAT Section 1 ('Thinking Skills'), Section 2 ('Scientific Knowledge and Applications') and Section 3a ('Writing Task') scores, with written and clinical assessment performance across all programme years. Incremental validity was investigated over PEA (A‐levels) in a subset of ICSM students. Results: When BMAT sections were investigated independently, Section 2 scores predicted performance on all written assessments in both institutions with mainly small effect sizes (standardised coefficient ranges: ICSM: 0.08–0.19; LKCMedicine: 0.22–0.36). Section 1 scores predicted Years 5 and 6 written assessment performance at ICSM (0.09–0.14) but nothing at LKCMedicine. Section 3a scores only predicted Year 5 clinical assessment performance at ICSM with a coefficient <0.1. There were no positive associations with standardised coefficients >0.1 between BMAT performance and clinical assessment performance. Multivariable regressions confirmed that Section 2 scores were the most predictive. We found no clear evidence of incremental validity for any BMAT section scores over A‐level grades. Discussion: Schools who wish to assess scientific knowledge independently of A‐levels may find BMAT Section 2 useful. Comparison with previous studies indicates that, overall, BMAT seems less useful than comparable tools. Larger scale studies are needed. Broader questions regarding why institutions adopt certain admissions tests, including those with little evidence, need consideration. The authors use exploration of the BMAT to invite readers to reflect on why institutions adopt certain admissions tests even in the face of little utility evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=158316849 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/medu.14819 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 13 StartPage: 936 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Retrospective studies Type: general – SubjectFull: Academic achievement Type: general – SubjectFull: Medical schools Type: general – SubjectFull: Predictive validity Type: general – SubjectFull: Longitudinal method Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: BMAT's predictive validity for medical school performance: A retrospective cohort study. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Davies, Daniel J. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sam, Amir H. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Murphy, Kevin G. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Khan, Shahid A. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Choe, Ruth – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Cleland, Jennifer IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 09 Text: Sep2022 Type: published Y: 2022 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 03080110 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 56 – Type: issue Value: 9 Titles: – TitleFull: Medical Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
