Predictive validity of the Biomedical Admissions Test: An evaluation and case study
Abstract
There has been an increase in the use of pre-admission selection tests for medicine. Such tests need to show good psychometric properties. Here, we use a paper by Emery and Bell [2009. The predictive validity of the Biomedical Admissions Test for pre-clinical examination performance. Med Educ 43:557-564] as a case study to evaluate and comment on the reporting of psychometric data in the field of medical student selection (and the comments apply to many papers in the field). We highlight pitfalls when reliability data are not presented, how simple zero-order associations can lead to inaccurate conclusions about the predictive validity of a test, and how biases need to be explored and reported. We show with BMAT that it is the knowledge part of the test which does all the predictive work. We show that without evidence of incremental validity it is difficult to assess the value of any selection tests for medicine.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data
Downing, S. M. (2003) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x · Cited by 1,434 · see citing works
Factors associated with success in medical school: systematic review of the literature
Ferguson, E., James, D., & Madeley, L. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7343.952 · Cited by 811 · see citing works
Self-citationValidity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting medical school performance
Julian, E. R. (2005) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200510000-00010 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- McManus, I. C., Ferguson, E., Wakeford, R., Powis, D., & James, D.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- University of Nottingham (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
- Corresponding author
- McManus, I. C.
- Venue
- Medical Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-12-23
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-57
- ISSN
- 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
- 1466-187X
- OpenAlex
- W2138777855
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 3.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- predictive validity, medical student selection, reliability statistics, incremental validity, selection bias
- MeSH terms
- College Admission Test, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Psychometrics, Schools, Medical, Reproducibility of Results, Clinical Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review