4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predictive validity of A-level grades and teacher-predicted grades in UK medical school applicants: a retrospective analysis of administrative data in a time of COVID-19

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To compare in UK medical students the predictive validity of attained A-level grades and teacher-predicted A levels for undergraduate and postgraduate outcomes. Teacher-predicted A-level grades are a plausible proxy for the teacher-estimated grades that replaced UK examinations in 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also models the likely future consequences for UK medical schools of replacing public A-level examination grades with teacher-predicted grades.

          Design

          Longitudinal observational study using UK Medical Education Database data.

          Setting

          UK medical education and training.

          Participants

          Dataset 1: 81 202 medical school applicants in 2010–2018 with predicted and attained A-level grades. Dataset 2: 22 150 18-year-old medical school applicants in 2010–2014 with predicted and attained A-level grades, of whom 12 600 had medical school assessment outcomes and 1340 had postgraduate outcomes available.

          Outcome measures

          Undergraduate and postgraduate medical examination results in relation to attained and teacher-predicted A-level results.

          Results

          Dataset 1: teacher-predicted grades were accurate for 48.8% of A levels, overpredicted in 44.7% of cases and underpredicted in 6.5% of cases. Dataset 2: undergraduate and postgraduate outcomes correlated significantly better with attained than with teacher-predicted A-level grades. Modelling suggests that using teacher-estimated grades instead of attained grades will mean that 2020 entrants are more likely to underattain compared with previous years, 13% more gaining the equivalent of the lowest performance decile and 16% fewer reaching the equivalent of the current top decile, with knock-on effects for postgraduate training.

          Conclusions

          The replacement of attained A-level examination grades with teacher-estimated grades as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic may result in 2020 medical school entrants having somewhat lower academic performance compared with previous years. Medical schools may need to consider additional teaching for entrants who are struggling or who might need extra support for missed aspects of A-level teaching.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Comparing correlated correlation coefficients.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect.

              Engaging in a test over previously studied information can serve as a potent learning event, a phenomenon referred to as the testing effect. Despite a surge of research in the past decade, existing theories have not yet provided a cohesive account of testing phenomena. The present study uses meta-analysis to examine the effects of testing versus restudy on retention. Key results indicate support for the role of effortful processing as a contributor to the testing effect, with initial recall tests yielding larger testing benefits than recognition tests. Limited support was found for existing theoretical accounts attributing the testing effect to enhanced semantic elaboration, indicating that consideration of alternative mechanisms is warranted in explaining testing effects. Future theoretical accounts of the testing effect may benefit from consideration of episodic and contextually derived contributions to retention resulting from memory retrieval. Additionally, the bifurcation model of the testing effect is considered as a viable framework from which to characterize the patterns of results present across the literature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2021
                16 December 2021
                16 December 2021
                : 11
                : 12
                : e047354
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentResearch Department of Medical Education , UCL Medical School , London, UK
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Health Sciences , University of York , York, UK
                [3 ] departmentHealth Professions Education Unit , Hull York Medical School , Hull, UK
                [4 ] Cambridge Assessment , Cambridge, UK
                [5 ] General Medical Council , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor I C McManus; i.mcmanus@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3510-4814
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4915-0715
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3328-5634
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1215-5811
                Article
                bmjopen-2020-047354
                10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047354
                8678544
                f4fe0709-d3fa-4407-9cc7-303c65ee51a6
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 26 November 2020
                : 17 September 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Award ID: CDF-2017-10-008
                Categories
                Medical Education and Training
                1506
                2474
                1709
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                covid-19,medical education & training,education & training (see medical education & training)

                Comments

                Comment on this article