A Study of the Validity of the New MCAT Exam.


Journal

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
ISSN: 1938-808X
Titre abrégé: Acad Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8904605

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 9 11 2019
medline: 12 5 2020
entrez: 9 11 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To conduct a study of the validity of the new Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Deidentified data for first- and second-year medical students (185 women, 54.3%; 156 men, 45.7%) who matriculated in 2016 and 2017 to the University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities were included. Of those students, 220 (64.5%) had taken the new MCAT exam and 182 (53.4%) had taken the old MCAT exam (61 [17.9%] had taken both). The authors calculated descriptive statistics and Pearson product moment correlations (r) between new and old MCAT section scores. They conducteda regression analysis of MCAT section scores with Step 1 scores and with preclerkship course performance. They also conducted an exploratory factor analysis (principal component analysis with varimax rotation) of MCAT scores, undergraduate grade point average, Step 1 scores, and course performance. The new MCAT exam section mean score percentiles ranged from 72 to 78 (mean composite score percentile of 80). The old MCAT exam section mean score percentiles ranged from 84 to 88 (mean composite score percentile of 83). The pattern of correlations among and between new and old MCAT exam section scores (range of r: 0.03-0.67; P < .01) provided evidence of both divergent and convergent validities. Backward multiple regression of new MCAT exam section scores and Step 1 scores resulted in a multiple R of .440; the same analysis with Human Behavior course performance as the dependent variable provided a similar solution with the expected sections of the new MCAT exam (multiple R = .502). The factor analysis resulted in 4 cohesive, theoretically meaningful factors: biomedical knowledge, basic science concepts, cognitive reasoning, and general achievement. This study provided empirical evidence of multiple types of validity for the new MCAT exam.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31702690
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003064
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

396-400

Auteurs

Claudio Violato (C)

C. Violato is professor and assistant dean for assessment and evaluation and affiliated with the Medical Education Outcomes Center, University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota. J.L. Gauer is manager, evaluation and analytics, and affiliated with the Medical Education Outcomes Center, University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E.M. Violato is a PhD candidate, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and affiliated with the Medical Education Outcomes Center, University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota. D. Patel is associate dean for admissions and affiliated with the Medical Education Outcomes Center, University of Minnesota Medical School-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH