ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Evaluating the internal structure validity of admissions measures: do they capture distinct attributes?
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Veterinary admissions committees aim to select applicants who will successfully complete a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) program and contribute effectively to the profession. Although traditional admission procedures emphasize academic indicators such as undergraduate grade point average (uGPA) and standardized test scores, increasing attention has been placed on assessing social-emotional skills and school-specific contextual attributes. Given the high-stakes nature of admissions and the claim that multiple attributes are assessed at the time of selection, internal structure validity evidence is required to support the use of scores from admissions measures in the selection process. This study examines whether commonly used admissions measures reflect distinct academic, social-emotional, and contextual factors. Methods: Participants included 338 applicants (78.17% female) in a retrospective cohort study from the 2022-2024 admissions cycles at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Canada. Admissions measures included uGPA, Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) total and subscores, Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) scores, Computer-based Assessment for Sampling Personal Characteristics (Casper) situational judgement scores, standardized essay ratings, and structured file review scores. Bivariate correlation and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) were used to explore the relationships and internal structure between the scores from these admissions measures. Results: Correlations among admissions variables showed small to moderate associations, with expected clustering among academic indicators. EFA produced a three-factor solution accounting for 53.36% of the variance which were labeled: (1) Academic Ability (uGPA; MCAT academic subscores), (2) social- emotional skills (essay, Casper, MCAT social emotional sub score; partial MMI loading), and (3) contextual factors (file review; partial MMI loading). Discussion: Findings provide internal structure validity evidence supporting the claim that admissions measures capture multiple attributes and these measures should be considered collectively as a system of assessment. Notably, the MMI contributed to both social-emotional and contextual factors, highlighting its multifaceted nature. These findings provide a foundation for longitudinal research examining the predictive validity of academic, social-emotional, and contextual factors for performance throughout veterinary training.
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.