ArticleMedical education2022
BMAT's predictive validity for medical school performance: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reframing Validity: How Values Shape Assessment in Postgraduate Medical Education.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- The Influence of Demographic Characteristics on Student Academic Performance in University Admission Tests.Psychology in Russia : state of the art · 2025Article
- Article
- BMAT's predictive validity for medical school performance: A retrospective cohort study.Medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsWhen 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.
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.