Comparisons of Validity of the New and Prior MCAT Exams in Predicting Performances on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the United States Medical Licensing Examinations.

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Aaron Douglas, Alisa Alfonsi LoSasso, Bernard L Lopez, Charles Pohl, Anita Wilson, Mohammadreza Hojat
{"title":"Comparisons of Validity of the New and Prior MCAT Exams in Predicting Performances on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the United States Medical Licensing Examinations.","authors":"Aaron Douglas, Alisa Alfonsi LoSasso, Bernard L Lopez, Charles Pohl, Anita Wilson, Mohammadreza Hojat","doi":"10.1080/10401334.2025.2495353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examined the validity of the new MCAT exam (administered since 2015) for predicting medical students' performance on United States Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLE) and compared the findings with those of the prior MCAT version. Participants comprised two samples of students who entered Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University between 2012 and 2020. One sample included 1,111 students (559 men, 552 women) with new MCAT scores who matriculated between 2016 and 2020, and the other comprised 1,312 students (668 men, 644 women) with prior MCAT scores who matriculated between 2012 and 2015. We used students' MCAT scores as predictors of performance on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the USMLE. Bivariate correlations and path analysis were used for statistical analyses. Path analysis showed new MCAT total scores resulted in <i>R<sup>2</sup></i> values of 0.14, 0.11, and 0.16 for predicting performance on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the USMLE, respectively. The new MCAT total scores demonstrated levels of validity comparable to the prior MCAT for predicting students' performances on the criterion measures. Additional path analyses showed an impact of gender on the predictive validities for some section scores of the new (but not prior) MCAT exam. Replication of this study is recommended in other medical schools to examine generalizability of our findings regarding predictive validities of section scores of the new MCAT exam, particularly regarding gender and section.</p>","PeriodicalId":51183,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2025.2495353","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examined the validity of the new MCAT exam (administered since 2015) for predicting medical students' performance on United States Medical Licensing Examinations (USMLE) and compared the findings with those of the prior MCAT version. Participants comprised two samples of students who entered Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University between 2012 and 2020. One sample included 1,111 students (559 men, 552 women) with new MCAT scores who matriculated between 2016 and 2020, and the other comprised 1,312 students (668 men, 644 women) with prior MCAT scores who matriculated between 2012 and 2015. We used students' MCAT scores as predictors of performance on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the USMLE. Bivariate correlations and path analysis were used for statistical analyses. Path analysis showed new MCAT total scores resulted in R2 values of 0.14, 0.11, and 0.16 for predicting performance on Steps 1, 2, and 3 of the USMLE, respectively. The new MCAT total scores demonstrated levels of validity comparable to the prior MCAT for predicting students' performances on the criterion measures. Additional path analyses showed an impact of gender on the predictive validities for some section scores of the new (but not prior) MCAT exam. Replication of this study is recommended in other medical schools to examine generalizability of our findings regarding predictive validities of section scores of the new MCAT exam, particularly regarding gender and section.

新的和以前的MCAT考试在预测美国医师执照考试第1、2和3步表现的有效性比较
本研究检验了新MCAT考试(自2015年起实施)预测医学生在美国医学执照考试(USMLE)中的表现的有效性,并将结果与之前的MCAT版本进行了比较。参与者包括2012年至2020年间进入托马斯·杰斐逊大学西德尼·基梅尔医学院的两名学生样本。一个样本包括1111名2016年至2020年间入学的MCAT新成绩学生(559名男性,552名女性),另一个样本包括1312名2012年至2015年间入学的MCAT新成绩学生(668名男性,644名女性)。我们使用学生的MCAT分数作为USMLE步骤1、2和3的预测指标。采用双变量相关和通径分析进行统计分析。通径分析显示,新的MCAT总分的R2值分别为0.14、0.11和0.16,用于预测USMLE步骤1、2和3的表现。新的MCAT总分在预测学生在标准测量上的表现方面显示出与以前的MCAT相当的效度水平。另外的路径分析显示,性别对新的MCAT考试部分分数的预测效度有影响(但不是以前的)。建议在其他医学院重复这项研究,以检验我们关于新MCAT考试部分分数预测效度的发现的普遍性,特别是关于性别和部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Teaching and Learning in Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Teaching and Learning in Medicine ( TLM) is an international, forum for scholarship on teaching and learning in the health professions. Its international scope reflects the common challenge faced by all medical educators: fostering the development of capable, well-rounded, and continuous learners prepared to practice in a complex, high-stakes, and ever-changing clinical environment. TLM''s contributors and readership comprise behavioral scientists and health care practitioners, signaling the value of integrating diverse perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of learning and performance. The journal seeks to provide the theoretical foundations and practical analysis needed for effective educational decision making in such areas as admissions, instructional design and delivery, performance assessment, remediation, technology-assisted instruction, diversity management, and faculty development, among others. TLM''s scope includes all levels of medical education, from premedical to postgraduate and continuing medical education, with articles published in the following categories:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信