ArticlePloS one2016
Predicting Performance in Higher Education Using Proximal Predictors.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive validity of admission tests and educational attainment on preclinical academic performance - a multisite study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Dear admission committee…: Which moves in application essays predict student master grades?PloS one · 2024Article
- Methodological Approaches to Talent Identification in Team Sports: A Narrative Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Using big data to promote precision oral health in the context of a learning healthcare system.Journal of public health dentistry · 2020Review
- A Quantitative Study of the Impact of Functional Classification on Competitive Anxiety and Performance Among Wheelchair Basketball Athletes.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Methodological Issues in Soccer Talent Identification Research.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2019Article
- Comment on: "Talent Identification in Sport: A Systematic Review".Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018Article
- Lessons learned from 15 years of non-grades-based selection for medical school.Medical education · 2018Article
- Do different curriculum aligned selection procedures admit students with different personality profiles to medical school?PloS one · 2018Article
- Admission testing for higher education: A multi-cohort study on the validity of high-fidelity curriculum-sampling tests.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We studied the validity of two methods for predicting academic performance and student-program fit that were proximal to important study criteria. Applicants to an undergraduate psychology program participated in a selection procedure containing a trial-studying test based on a work sample approach, and specific skills tests in English and math. Test scores were used to predict academic achievement and progress after the first year, achievement in specific course types, enrollment, and dropout after the first year. All tests showed positive significant correlations with the criteria. The trial-studying test was consistently the best predictor in the admission procedure. We found no significant differences between the predictive validity of the trial-studying test and prior educational performance, and substantial shared explained variance between the two predictors. Only applicants with lower trial-studying scores were significantly less likely to enroll in the program. In conclusion, the trial-studying test yielded predictive validities similar to that of prior educational performance and possibly enabled self-selection. In admissions aimed at student-program fit, or in admissions in which past educational performance is difficult to use, a trial-studying test is a good instrument to predict academic performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.