Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27638740›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2016

Predictive validity of the UKCAT for medical school undergraduate performance: a national prospective cohort study.

Paul A Tiffin, Lazaro M Mwandigha, Lewis W Paton, H Hesselgreaves, John C McLachlan, Gabrielle M Finn, Adetayo S Kasim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Opening the black box of selection.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Paul A TiffinDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK. paul.tiffin@york.ac.uk.
Lazaro M MwandighaDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Lewis W PatonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
H HesselgreavesInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RZ, UK.
John C McLachlanMedical Education, School for Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University Queen's Campus, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK.
Gabrielle M FinnHull York Medical School, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Adetayo S KasimWolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing, Durham University Queen's Campus, University Boulevard, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK.
University of York · GBDurham University · GBHull York Medical School · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2015-08-011Medical Research Council G1002312Medical Research Council G1002325
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) has been shown to have a modest but statistically significant ability to predict aspects of academic performance throughout medical school. Previously, this ability has been shown to be incremental to conventional measures of educational performance for the first year of medical school. This study evaluates whether this predictive ability extends throughout the whole of undergraduate medical study and explores the potential impact of using the test as a selection screening tool.

methodsThis was an observational prospective study, linking UKCAT scores, prior educational attainment and sociodemographic variables with subsequent academic outcomes during the 5 years of UK medical undergraduate training. The participants were 6812 entrants to UK medical schools in 2007-8 using the UKCAT. The main outcome was academic performance at each year of medical school. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was also conducted, treating the UKCAT as a screening test for a negative academic outcome (failing at least 1 year at first attempt).

resultsAll four of the UKCAT scale scores significantly predicted performance in theory- and skills-based exams. After adjustment for prior educational achievement, the UKCAT scale scores remained significantly predictive for most years. Findings from the ROC analysis suggested that, if used as a sole screening test, with the mean applicant UKCAT score as the cut-off, the test could be used to reject candidates at high risk of failing at least 1 year at first attempt. However, the 'number needed to reject' value would be high (at 1.18), with roughly one candidate who would have been likely to pass all years at first sitting being rejected for every higher risk candidate potentially declined entry on this basis.

conclusionsThe UKCAT scores demonstrate a statistically significant but modest degree of incremental predictive validity throughout undergraduate training. Whilst the UKCAT could be considered a fairly crude screening tool for future academic performance, it may offer added value when used in conjunction with other selection measures. Future work should focus on the optimum role of such tests within the selection process and the prediction of post-graduate performance.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalAptitude TestsClinical CompetenceCohort StudiesEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFemaleForecastingHumansMaleProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSchool Admission CriteriaSchools, MedicalUnited KingdomAptitude testingMedical selectionPredictive validityUndergraduate performance

Identifiers

PMID27638740
PMCPMC5026770
OpenAlexW2519800310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.