ArticleMedical science educator2025
Predictive Validity and Differential Prediction of the MCAT Section Scores for Medical Students' Performance in Preclinical Courses.
Article in Medical science educator, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the internal structure validity of admissions measures: do they capture distinct attributes?Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Limited research has been conducted on the differential predictive validity of the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) section scores (e.g., Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems [BBLS], Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems [CPBS]) for basic science courses (Anatomy and Histology). Accordingly, the purpose was to assess the predictive validity and differential prediction of these section scores to predict Anatomy and Histology performance across sex (men vs. women) and race (White vs. non-White). Methods: The authors analyzed data from 520 undergraduate medical students (sex: 292 women [56.15%], 228 men [43.85%]) in Anatomy and Histology courses. The authors utilized multiple linear regression and Results: BBLS and CPBS section scores explained more variance in Histology compared to Anatomy, particularly for the non-White and men groups (25% and 29% vs. 24%). For the differential prediction, Conclusions: Current results contribute to the broader evidence supporting the validity of MCAT section scores. The general absence of differential prediction (i.e., comparable predictions across groups) supports the fairness of MCAT-based inferences, bolstering confidence in its use for medical school admissions and promoting equity.
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.