Search

Purpose: This is the first multisite investigation of the validity of scores from the current version of the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) in clerkship and licensure contexts. It examined the predictive validity of MCAT scores and undergraduate grade point averages (UGPAs) for performance in preclerkship and clerkship courses and on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge examinations. It also studied students' progress in medical school., Method: Researchers examined data from 17 U.S. and Canadian MD-granting medical schools for 2016 and 2017 entrants who volunteered for the research and applied with scores from the current MCAT exam. They also examined data for all U.S. medical schools for 2016 and 2017 entrants to regular-MD programs who applied with scores from the current exam. Researchers conducted linear and logistic regression analyses to determine whether MCAT total scores added value beyond UGPAs in predicting medical students' performance and progress. Importantly, they examined the comparability of prediction by sex, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status., Results: Researchers reported medium to large correlations between MCAT total scores and medical student outcomes. Correlations between total UGPAs and medical student outcomes were similar but slightly lower. When MCAT scores and UGPAs were used together, they predicted student performance and progress better than either alone. Despite differences in average MCAT scores and UGPAs between students who self-identified as White or Asian and those from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, predictive validity results were comparable. The same was true for students from different socioeconomic backgrounds, and for males and females., Conclusions: These data demonstrate that MCAT scores add value to the prediction of medical student performance and progress and that applicants from different backgrounds who enter medical school with similar ranges of MCAT scores and UGPAs perform similarly in the curriculum., (Copyright © 2022 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Purpose: The new Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) was introduced in April 2015. This report presents findings from the first study of the validity of scores from the new MCAT exam in predicting student performance in the first year of medical school (M1)., Method: The authors analyzed data from the national population of 2016 matriculants with scores from the new MCAT exam (N = 7,970) and the sample of 2016 matriculants (N = 955) from 16 medical schools who volunteered to participate in the validity research. They examined correlations of students' MCAT total scores and total undergraduate grade point averages (UGPAs), alone and together, with their summative performance in M1, and the success rate of students with different MCAT scores in their on-time progression to the second year of medical school (M2). They assessed whether MCAT scores provided comparable prediction of performance in M1 by students' race/ethnicity, socioeconomic background, and gender., Results: Correlations of MCAT scores with summative performance in M1 ranged from medium to large. Although MCAT scores and UGPAs provided similar prediction of performance in M1, using both metrics provided better prediction than either alone. Additionally, students with a wide range of MCAT scores progressed to M2 on time. Finally, MCAT scores provided comparable prediction of performance in M1 for students from different sociodemographic backgrounds., Conclusions: This study provides early evidence that scores from the new MCAT exam predict student performance in M1. Future research will examine the validity of MCAT scores in predicting performance in later years.

Introduction: Few studies have documented the value of mentoring for medical students, and research has been limited to more subjective (e.g., job satisfaction, perceived career preparation) rather than objective outcomes. This study examined whether having a mentor is associated with match outcome (where a student matched based on their rank order list [ROL])., Methods: We sent a survey link to all emergency medicine (EM) program coordinators to distribute to their residents. EM residents were surveyed about whether they had a mentor during medical school. Match outcome was assessed by asking residents where they matched on their ROL (e.g., first choice, fifth choice). They were also asked about rank in medical school, type of degree (MD vs. DO), and performance on standardized tests. Residents who indicated having a mentor completed the Mentorship Effectiveness Scale (MES), which evaluates behavioral characteristics of the mentor and yields a total score. We assessed correlations among these variables using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Post-hoc analysis using independent sample t-test was conducted to compare differences in the MES score between those who matched to their first or second choice vs. third or higher choice., Results: Participants were a convenience sample of 297 EM residents. Of those, 199 (67%) reported having a mentor during medical school. Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no significant correlation between having a mentor and match outcome (r=0.06, p=0.29). Match outcome was associated with class rank (r=0.13, p=0.03), satisfaction with match outcome (r= -0.37, p<0.001), and type of degree (r=0.12, p=0.04). Among those with mentors, a t-test revealed that the MES score was significantly higher among those who matched to their first or second choice (M=51.31, SD=10.13) compared to those who matched to their third or higher choice (M=43.59, SD=17.12), t(194)=3.65, p<0.001, d=0.55., Conclusion: Simply having a mentor during medical school does not impact match outcome, but having an effective mentor is associated with a more favorable match outcome among medical students applying to EM programs.