The UK Clinical Aptitude Test: Is it a fair test for selecting medical students?

Lambe, Paul; Waters, Catherine; Bristow, David R.

doi:10.3109/0142159x.2012.687482

Cited by 27 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…16 One potential advantage of the UKCAT is that it increases the number of individuals from under-represented socioeconomic groups who are offered places at medical school. 17,18 However, it is unclear whether this represents anything other than increased randomness in its selection from the candidate pool. In other words, it is not clear whether the UKCAT selects the most suitable candidates from under-represented socioeconomic groups.…”

Section: Do Non-knowledge-based Tests Predict Good Students?mentioning

confidence: 99%

UK medical selection: lottery or meritocracy?

Harris¹,

Walsh²,

Lammy³

2015

Clinical Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From senior school through to consultancy, a plethora of assessments shape medical careers. Multiple methods of assessment are used to discriminate between applicants. Medical selection in the UK appears to be moving increasingly towards non-knowledge-based testing at all career stages. We review the evidence for non-knowledge-based tests and discuss their perceived benefi ts. We raise the question: is the current use of non-knowledge-based tests within the UK at risk of undermining more robust measures of medical school and postgraduate performance?

show abstract

Section: Do Non-knowledge-based Tests Predict Good Students?mentioning

confidence: 99%

UK medical selection: lottery or meritocracy?

Harris¹,

Walsh²,

Lammy³

2015

Clinical Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, there is varied evidence on the equity of aptitude tests for different groups of medical school applicants (e.g. according to sex, age, language status and socio‐economic status) . Other evidence suggests that aptitude tests are equitable with respect to candidate background, are affected relatively little by candidate coaching, and remain stable over time, with the possible exception of the UMAT .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How effective are selection methods in medical education? A systematic review

Knight²,

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence shows clearly that academic records, MMIs, aptitude tests, SJTs and SCs are more effective selection methods and are generally fairer than traditional interviews, references and personal statements. However, achievement in different selection methods may differentially predict performance at the various stages of medical education and clinical practice. Research into selection has been over-reliant on cross-sectional study designs and has tended to focus on reliability estimates rather than validity as an indicator of quality. A comprehensive framework of outcome criteria should be developed to allow researchers to interpret empirical evidence and compare selection methods fairly. This review highlights gaps in evidence for the combination of selection tools that is most effective and the weighting to be given to each tool.

show abstract

“…Although it is argued that students cannot revise or be ‘coached’ to do well in the UKCAT, practice does improve performance . It is probable that over time, schools and careers staff will get better at preparing candidates and more effective commercial courses and aids will be developed; it might be speculated that this is likely to be to the advantage of students from more affluent families and those attending selective or independent schools …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%