Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Original article

Vol. 143 No. 3738 (2013)

The predictive validity of the aptitude test for the performance of students starting a medical curriculum

  • Bernard Cerutti
  • Laurent Bernheim
  • Elisabeth van Gessel
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2013.13872
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2013;143:w13872
Published
08.09.2013

Summary

INTRODUCTION: Selection of medical students varies between German- and French-speaking Swiss faculties. Geneva introduced an aptitude test in 2010, aimed at helping decision making among students. The test was compulsory: it had to be taken by those who intended to register for medical studies. But it was not selective: there was no performance threshold under which registration would have been denied.

METHODS: We followed 353 students who took the test in 2010, checked whether they confirmed their registration for medical studies and studied their performance during year 1 (selective year).

RESULTS: The correlation between the aptitude test result and the academic performance during year 1 was 0.47 (n = 191), and weakened to 0.38 (n = 214) when including repetition of year 1. The failure to pass in year 2 or success were associated with the aptitude test results (p <0.001). Overall, 20% of the students succeeded after one year, 26% after a repeated year 1, and 53% failed and could not follow further medical studies.

CONCLUSION: Though there was a clear association between the aptitude test and academic performance, students did not appear to take into account when making their career decisions the ability of the test (as implemented in Geneva, that is, compulsory but not selective) to predict their future performance in the medical programme. The test was withdrawn after the 2012 session, but a number of issues regarding the medical selection procedure remain to be addressed.

References

  1. Roberts C, Prideaux D. Selection for medical schools: re-imaging as an international discourse. Med Educ. 2010;44(11):1054–6.
  2. Callahan CA, Hojat M, Veloski J, Erdmann JB, Gonnella JS. The predictive validity of three versions of the MCAT in relation to performance in medical school, residency, and licensing examinations: a longitudinal study of 36 classes of Jefferson Medical College. Acad Med. 2010;85(6):980–7.
  3. Coates H. Establishing the criterion validity of the Graduate Medical School Admissions Test (GAMSAT). Med Educ. 2008;42(10):999–1006.
  4. Goho J, Blackman A. The effectiveness of academic admission interviews: an exploratory meta-analysis. Med Teach. 2006;28(4):335–40.
  5. Dowell J, Lumsden MA, Powis D, Munro D, Bore M, et al. Predictive validity of the personal qualities assessment for selection of medical students in Scotland. Med Teach. 2011;33(9):e485–8.
  6. Mercer A, Puddey IB. Admission selection criteria as predictors of outcomes in an undergraduate medical course: a prospective study. Med Teach. 2011;33(12):997–1004.
  7. Reiter HI, Eva KW, Rosenfeld J, Norman GR. Multiple mini-interviews predict clerkship and licensing examination performance. Med Educ. 2007;41(4):378–84.
  8. Al Alwan I, Al Kushi M, Tamim H, Magzoub M, Elzubeir M. Health sciences and medical college preadmission criteria and prediction of in-course academic performance: a longitudinal cohort study. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012; Jun 6. Epub ahead of print.
  9. Donnon T, Paolucci EO, Violato C. The predictive validity of the MCAT for medical school performance and medical board licensing examinations: a meta-analysis of the published research. Acad Med. 2007;82(1):100–6.
  10. Lynch B, Mackenzie R, Dowell J, Cleland J, Prescott G. Does the UKCAT predict Year 1 performance in medical school? Med Educ. 2009;43(12):1203–9.
  11. Turner R, Nicholson S. Can the UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) select suitable candidates for interview? Med Educ. 2011;45(10):1041–7.
  12. Halpenny D, Cadoo K, Halpenny M, Burke J, Torreggiani WC. The Health Professions Admission Test (HPAT) score and leaving certificate results can independently predict academic performance in medical school: do we need both tests? Ir Med J. 2010;103(10):300–2.
  13. Hänsgen KD, Spicher B. Aptitude test for medical studies 2012 [in German]. Zentrum für Testentwicklung and Diagnostik 2012, University of Freiburg, Switzerland.
  14. Lambe P, Waters C, Bristow D. The UK Clinical Aptitude Test: is it a fair test for selecting medical students? Med Teach. 2012;34(8):e557–65.
  15. Wright SR, Bradley PM. Has the UK Clinical Aptitude Test improved medical student selection? Med Educ. 2010;44(11):1069–76.
  16. Prideaux D, Roberts C, Eva K, Centeno A, McCrorie P, et al. Assessment for selection for the health care professions and specialty training: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa 2010 Conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(3):215–23.
  17. Tiffin PA, Dowell JS, McLachlan JC. Widening access to UK medical education for under-represented socioeconomic groups: modelling the impact of the UKCAT in the 2009 cohort. BMJ. 2012;344(17):e1805.
  18. Kaplan RM, Satterfield JM, Kington RS. Building a better physician – the case for the new MCAT. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(14):1265–8.

Most read articles by the same author(s)