Association of American Medical Colleges - AAMC is a publication of the Association of American...

Association of American Medical CollegesWashington, D.C.

Using MCAT® Data in 2018 Medical Student Selection

© 2017 Association of American Medical Colleges. May not be reproduced or distributed without prior written permission.

This is a publication of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). The AAMC serves and leads the academic medicine community to improve the health of all. www.aamc.org.

Contents

Letter to Admissions Officers 1

Interpreting and Using MCAT Scores in Admissions Decision Making 3

How do admissions officers use MCAT scores and other application data in the holistic review of applicants’ qualifications? 3

What does the MCAT exam measure? 6

How are MCAT scores calculated and reported? 8

Understanding the Examinees Who Took the New MCAT Exam in 2015 and 2016 12

What are the characteristics of examinees who took the new MCAT exam? 12

How did examinees prepare for the new MCAT exam? 13

How did examinees perform on the new MCAT exam? 14

How do examinees’ scores change when they retake the new MCAT exam, and how do admissions officers use scores for applicants who test more than once? 16

Understanding the Applicants Who Submitted New Scores in the 2016 and 2017 Admissions Cycles 19

What did the 2016 admissions cycle look like? 19

What strategies were used by admissions committees that accepted more applicants with scores in the middle of the new score scale in 2016 than they accepted in the middle of the old score scale in the past? 19

What were the MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of applicants who submitted new scores in the 2017 admissions cycle? 21

Understanding the Predictive Validity of Scores from the New MCAT Exam 24

What information is available about the predictive validity of scores from the new MCAT exam? 24

What else will we learn about the fairness, impact, use, and predictive validity of the new MCAT exam? 26

What key findings from the MCAT validity research will be released over the next three years? 30

References 31

Appendix A. Description of the Foundational Concepts, Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning Skills, and Information-Processing Skills Tested on the Four Sections of the MCAT Exam 32

Appendix B. MCAT Total and Section Score Percentile Ranks in Effect May 1, 2017–April 30, 2018 36

Association of American Medical Colleges1

Dear Admissions Officers,

The new version of the Medical College Admission Test® (MCAT®) was introduced in April 2015. This exam was redesigned for today’s medical students and tomorrow’s doctors. It tests the knowledge and skills that students need when they enter medical school.

The 2018 admissions cycle is the third year in which you and your admissions committee will consider scores from the new MCAT exam. When the 2018 admissions cycle opens at the end of June 2017, virtually all the scores you will receive from applicants will be from this new version of the MCAT exam.

This guide provides admissions officers, medical school faculty members, and others who serve on admissions committees with information about the design, interpretation, use, and predictive value of the new version of the MCAT exam. It presents information about how to interpret and use MCAT scores in the context of holistic review. It also provides data about the new MCAT exam, showing how applicants prepared for and performed on the exam and data about how medical schools worked with scores from the new exam in the selection of students in the 2017 admissions cycle.

This guide describes early data on the predictive validity of the new exam and a timeline for when you will learn more information about the MCAT exam and its use and value in admissions decision making. A report that describes the MCAT validity research agenda in more detail is at aamc.org/mcatvalidityresearch.

In this guide, we refer to the MCAT exam introduced in 2015 as either the MCAT exam or the new MCAT exam, depending on the context. The MCAT exam that was retired after January 2015 is always referred to as the old exam.

Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have questions. You can reach us by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Cynthia A. Searcy, PhD Senior Director, MCAT Research and Development


Interpreting and Using MCAT Scores in Admissions Decision Making

This section answers three questions about the interpretation and use of MCAT scores in admissions decision making:

• How do admissions officers use MCAT scores and other application data in the holistic review of applicants’ qualifications?

• What does the MCAT exam measure?

• How are MCAT scores calculated and reported?

How do admissions officers use MCAT scores and other application data in the holistic review of applicants’ qualifications?

This section of the guide provides recommendations for using MCAT scores in conjunction with all the information provided by each medical school applicant. It also describes how medical schools work with MCAT scores in the context of holistic review.

Applicants provide admissions committees with rich information about their experiences, attributes, and academic backgrounds through their applications, personal statements, and interviews. Letter writers also provide information about applicants’ academic and personal competencies. Your institutional mission, goals, and priorities provide a framework for evaluating applicants with this rich and varied information in holistic ways and for admitting a class of capable, caring students who bring diverse interests, talents, and experiences to your institution.

Holistic review practices provide the foundation for selecting applicants with the academic and personal competencies that future physicians need.

Holistic review practices provide the foundation for using the MCAT exam in admissions decision making. It is important to remember the following recommendations for considering data about academic preparation in the context of all the information collected during the admissions process.

• You should carefully consider the rich and assorted data that applicants provide, weighing data about applicants’ experiences, attributes, and academic preparation in ways that help you meet your institution’s goals.

• You should triangulate score information from the MCAT exam with information about applicants’ course completion, grades, grade trends, institutional selectivity, research experience, and other academic indicators. You should look for consistencies and inconsistencies in the stories these data tell.

• For MCAT scores in particular, you should consider the precision with which total and section scores measure applicants’ academic preparation when making decisions about whom to interview and accept. Scores that are close together are not meaningfully different.

Scores from the MCAT exam should not outweigh other application data in deciding which applicants will get secondary application invitations, interview invitations, or acceptance offers.

The procedures that admissions officers from different medical schools use to review the data on applicants’ qualifications differ in ways that reflect the schools’ unique educational missions and goals and the sizes of their applicant pools. To learn more about the holistic review practices of different medical schools, the AAMC has surveyed admissions officers about the relative importance of different academic, experiential, demographic, and personal attribute data in making admissions decisions (e.g., Mitchell et al 1994; Monroe et al 2013; AAMC Admissions Initiative unpublished data 2013; AAMC and SRA International, Inc. 2016).

Using MCAT Data in 2018 Medical Student Selection


Table 1 summarizes the results of the most recent survey, conducted in 2015, which suggests that admissions officers do follow the recommendations described above. The survey asked admissions officers about the importance of academic metrics, experiences, demographics, and other sources of applicant information at each phase of the admissions process.

The table highlights the importance of different types of data in admissions decision making. Previous surveys on the use and importance of data used to make admissions decisions have supported findings from the 2015 survey by consistently showing that experiences, academic metrics, demographics, and attributes all weigh heavily in decisions to offer acceptances (Dunleavy et al 2011; AAMC Admissions Initiative unpublished data 2013).

National-level data on acceptance rates for applicants who took previous versions of the MCAT exam reinforce the messages the survey data provide. Each year, some applicants with high MCAT scores and undergraduate grade point averages (GPAs) are rejected by all the medical schools to which they applied. In contrast, other applicants with more modest MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs are accepted by at least one medical school. These data suggest that although undergraduate GPAs and MCAT scores are important factors in admissions, they are not the sole determinants of admissions decisions. (For data about acceptance rates from the 2012–2014 admissions cycles for applicants with different undergraduate GPAs and scores on the old MCAT exam, see the final guide on using data from the old MCAT exam in student selection at aamc.org/oldmcatguide.)

Later in this guide (pages 22 and 23), you will see the MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of 2017 applicants who took the new exam, along with preliminary data on the pool of accepted applicants with new scores. As they did for the old exam, these data show that admissions committees admit applicants with a wide range of MCAT scores and GPAs, weighing evidence of academic preparation with applicants’ experiences and attributes in ways that help schools meet their missions and goals. Consideration of these data and adherence to these recommendations will help your admissions committee construct a class that meets the academic, clinical, service, and research missions of your medical school.



Table 1. Mean Importance Ratings of Academic, Experiential, Demographic, and Interview Data Used by Admissions Committees for Making Decisions about Which Applicants Receive Interview Invitations and Acceptance Offers (N = 130)1



What does the MCAT exam measure?

This section of the guide provides information about what the MCAT exam is designed to measure. It contains information about how the blueprints were developed and what knowledge and skills are tested in each section of the exam.

The MCAT exam is designed to help medical school admissions committees select students who are academically prepared for medical school and to predict students’ academic performance in the preclerkship years, as well as the academic portions of students’ work in the clerkship years. The blueprints for the exam are aligned with concepts that medical school faculty, residents, and medical students recently rated as important to the success of entering students. They are organized around the academic competencies described by seminal reports such as the Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians (aamc.org/scientificfoundations) and the Behavioral and Social Science Foundations for Future Physicians (aamc.org/socialsciencefoundations). The quantitative and qualitative research evidence that supports the design and development of the MCAT exam is strong (Schwartzstein et al 2013).

The MCAT exam tests the foundational concepts and reasoning skills needed to be ready for today’s medical school.

This section of the guide provides information about the concepts and reasoning skills tested on the MCAT exam. The MCAT exam has four sections:

1. Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems2. Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems3. Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior4. Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills

The two natural sciences and the behavioral and social sciences sections of the MCAT exam test 10 foundational concepts and four scientific inquiry and reasoning skills that are foundational for learning in medical school. These sections ask test takers to combine their knowledge of concepts from courses in first-semester biochemistry, psychology, and sociology, along with year-long courses in biology, chemistry, and physics, with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills to solve problems presented in passages and test questions. As shown in Figure 1, MCAT questions test foundational concepts and scientific reasoning skills together. The resulting scores provide information about applicants’ readiness to learn in medical school.

The structure of the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section is different from the structure of the other sections of the exam. It tests how well test takers comprehend, analyze, and evaluate what they read, draw inferences from text, and apply arguments to new ideas and situations. Medical students are required to comprehend and analyze a great deal of information in different contexts, and this section tests the information-processing skills students need to succeed in medical school. It asks applicants to process information, draw conclusions, and solve problems using information presented in passages drawn from a diverse set of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. However, the questions on this section do not rely on specific background knowledge in the humanities and social sciences. Test takers get all the information they need to answer the questions in the accompanying passages or in the questions themselves. Appendix A provides more detailed descriptions of the concepts and reasoning skills tested by each of the four sections of the exam.

Two important features of the new MCAT exam are that it gives examinees more working time per question than the old exam did, and the scores it reports are more precise than scores from the old exam:

• Examinees get more time to read passages and questions on the new exam and consider the answers.

• Each section of the new exam includes more questions than the old exam, so the new scores are more precise than old scores. The new scores give score users better information about examinees’ strengths and weaknesses on the test.



Fig

ure

1. F

ou

nd

atio

nal

co

nce

pts

an

d s

cien

tifi

c in

qu

iry

and

rea

son

ing

ski

lls t

este

d o

n t

he

MC

AT

exam

.

Fou

nd

atio

nal

Co

nce

pts

Tes

ted

on

th

e M

CA

T Ex

am

Bio

log

ical

an

d B

ioch

emic

al F

ou

nd

atio

ns

of

Livi

ng

Sys

tem

s

Ch

emic

al a

nd

Ph

ysic

al

Fou

nd

atio

ns

of

Bio

log

ical

Sy

stem

sPs

ych

olo

gic

al, S

oci

al, a

nd

Bio

log

ical

Fo

un

dat

ion

s o

f B

ehav

ior

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 1

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 2

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 3

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 4

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 5

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 6

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 7

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 8

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 9

Fou

nd

atio

nal

C

on

cep

t 10

Biom

olec

ules

ha

ve u

niqu

e pr

oper

ties

that

de

term

ine

how

th

ey c

ontr

ibut

e to

the

str

uctu

re

and

func

tion

of

cells

and

how

th

ey p

artic

ipat

e in

the

pro

cess

es

nece

ssar

y to

su

stai

n lif

e.

Hig

hly

orga

nize

d as

sem

blie

s of

mol

ecul

es,

cells

, and

or

gans

inte

ract

to

car

ry o

ut

the

func

tions

of

livi

ng

orga

nism

s.

Com

plex

sy

stem

s of

tis

sues

and

or

gans

sen

se

the

inte

rnal

an

d ex

tern

al

envi

ronm

ents

of

mul

ticel

lula

r or

gani

sms,

an

d th

roug

h in

tegr

ated

fu

nctio

ning

, m

aint

ain

a st

able

inte

rnal

en

viro

nmen

t w

ithin

an

ever

-cha

ngin

g ex

tern

al

envi

ronm

ent.

Com

plex

livi

ng

orga

nism

s tr

ansp

ort

mat

eria

ls,

sens

e th

eir

envi

ronm

ent,

pr

oces

s si

gnal

s,

and

resp

ond

to

chan

ges

usin

g pr

oces

ses

that

ca

n be

und

er-

stoo

d in

ter

ms

of p

hysi

cal

prin

cipl

es.

The

prin

cipl

es

that

gov

ern

chem

ical

in

tera

ctio

ns

and

reac

tions

fo

rm t

he b

asis

fo

r a

broa

der

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

the

m

olec

ular

dy

nam

ics

of

livin

g sy

stem

s.

Biol

ogic

al,

psyc

holo

gica

l, an

d so

cioc

ultu

ral

fact

ors i

nflue

nce

the

way

s th

at

indi

vidu

als

perc

eive

, thi

nk

abou

t, a

nd

reac

t to

th

e w

orld

.

Biol

ogic

al,

psyc

holo

gica

l, an

d so

cioc

ultu

ral

fact

ors i

nflue

nce

beha

vior

and

be

havi

or

chan

ge.

Psyc

holo

gica

l, so

cioc

ultu

ral,

and

biol

ogic

al

fact

ors

influ

ence

the

w

ay w

e th

ink

abou

t ou

rsel

ves

and

othe

rs.

Cul

tura

l an

d so

cial

di

ffer

ence

s in

fluen

ce

wel

l-bei

ng.

Soci

al

stra

tifica

tion

and

acce

ss

to re

sour

ces

influ

ence

w

ell-b

eing

.

MC

AT

ques

tions

ask

tes

t ta

kers

to

solv

e pr

oble

ms

by u

sing

the

fol

low

ing

scie

ntifi

c in

quiry

and

rea

soni

ng s

kills

:

1.

Kno

wle

dge

of S

cien

tific

Con

cept

s an

d Pr

inci

ples

• D

emon

stra

ting

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

sci

entifi

c co

ncep

ts a

nd p

rinci

ples

• Id

entif

ying

the

rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

clos

ely

rela

ted

conc

epts

2.

Scie

ntifi

c Re

ason

ing

and

Prob

lem

Sol

ving

• Re

ason

ing

abou

t sc

ient

ific

prin

cipl

es, t

heor

ies,

and

mod

els

• A

naly

zing

and

eva

luat

ing

scie

ntifi

c ex

plan

atio

ns a

nd p

redi

ctio

ns

3.

Reas

onin

g ab

out

the

Des

ign

and

Exec

utio

n of

Res

earc

h•

Dem

onst

ratin

g un

ders

tand

ing

of im

port

ant

com

pone

nts

of s

cien

tific

rese

arch

• Re

ason

ing

abou

t et

hica

l iss

ues

in r

esea

rch

4.

Dat

a-Ba

sed

and

Stat

istic

al R

easo

ning

• In

terp

retin

g pa

tter

ns in

dat

a pr

esen

ted

in t

able

s, fi

gure

s, a

nd g

raph

s•

Reas

onin

g ab

out

data

and

dra

win

g co

nclu

sion

s fr

om t

hem



How are MCAT scores calculated and reported?

This section of the guide provides the information needed to interpret scores from the MCAT exam. It contains information about the score scales, percentile ranks, confidence bands, and score profiles that can be used to help make decisions about whom to interview and accept into medical school.

MCAT scale scores are computed by counting the number of questions on a section an applicant answers correctly and then converting that number to a scale score. For the body of knowledge and reasoning skills that the MCAT exam covers, the scale score indicates how much an applicant knows and how proficient their reasoning skills are.

Although the AAMC works very hard to create test forms that are equivalent in difficulty, some forms are a bit more challenging than others. Scale scores account for these slight differences in difficulty and indicate how much an applicant knows regardless of the test form taken. It doesn’t matter which test form an applicant takes or where or when they test; the resulting scale scores have the same meaning. The scale scores compare what applicants know with what they need to know to tackle the medical school curriculum.

The section and total score scales are centered on memorable numbers. The four section scores are centered at 125 and range from 118 to 132. Scores from the four sections are summed to produce a total score centered at 500 and ranging from 472 to 528.

The new MCAT scores draw attention to the center of the scales and the top half of the distributions to encourage admissions committees to consider applicants with a wider range of scores than they have in the past.

Research on the old exam suggests that the students who enter medical school with scores at the center of the scale succeed; they graduate in four or five years and pass their licensing exams on the first try (Dunleavy et al 2013). If history is a guide, applicants with a wide range of scores on the new MCAT exam who are admitted to medical school will succeed.

The MCAT score report provides the total and section scores, along with confidence bands, score profiles, and percentile ranks associated with the total and section scores. By describing the precision of MCAT total and section scores, the confidence bands help you to not overemphasize small differences in applicants’ scores; the bands show the ranges in which examinees’ true scores probably lie. Score profiles highlight applicants’ strengths and weaknesses across the four sections of the exam through reported scores for each section. And, the percentile ranks show you how an applicant’s scores compare with the scores of other examinees who took the exam. An example score report is shown in Figure 2, and more details about each component of the score report are included on the next several pages of this guide. You can also find an interactive version of this score report, with videos describing the concepts and reasoning skills tested by the new exam and downloadable fact sheets describing the scores, confidence bands, percentile ranks, and score profile, at aamc.org/mcatscorereport.



Figure 2. Example score report.

The sections below provide more details about how you can use all the information presented in a score report to help interpret an examinee’s preparation for medical school. It answers the following three questions:

• How precise are examinees’ MCAT scores, and how should they be interpreted?

• How can percentile ranks help with the interpretation of applicants’ MCAT scores?

• How can score profiles help triangulate MCAT scores with other information about academic preparation?

How precise are examinees’ MCAT scores, and how should they be interpreted?

Like other measurements, MCAT scores are imperfect measures of examinees’ true levels of preparation. They are not perfectly precise. Examinees’ scores can be dampened by factors such as fatigue, test anxiety, and less-than-optimal test room conditions, or they can be boosted by recent exposure to some of the tested topics.

Confidence bands remind admissions committee members not to overemphasize small differences in scores.

Confidence bands describe the precision of MCAT total and section scores. They show the ranges in which examinees’ true scores probably lie. It is important to include information about score precision in score reports and to consider this precision when using scores for decision making. The MCAT score reports show confidence bands both numerically and graphically.

MCAT total scores are reported with a confidence band of plus or minus two points, and MCAT section scores are reported with confidence bands of plus or minus one point.



Figure 3 shows a total score of 501 and its confidence band, which ranges from 499 to 503. The diamond shape shows the confidence band graphically and indicates that the reported score is the best estimate of an applicant’s true score. The reported score is in the center of the diamond, where the diamond is the tallest and the shading is the darkest.

Figure 3. Example MCAT total score, confidence band, and percentile rank.

Score Confidence Band

Percentile Rank of Score

MCAT Total Score

501 499 503 54%

When comparing two applicants’ scores, it is important to consider how much their confidence bands overlap. Scores that are close together have confidence bands that overlap. The greater the overlap in confidence bands, the less meaningful are the differences between the scores.

Figure 4 displays four pairs of MCAT total scores with confidence bands that differ in their degree of overlap. The scores in the top pair, 504 vs 503, are only one point apart on the total score scale. The figure shows that the confidence bands for these scores overlap on four score points—502, 503, 504, and 505.

In comparison, the scores in the bottom pair, 504 vs 500, are four points apart on the MCAT total score scale and have confidence bands that only overlap on one point on the total score scale—502—indicating that these scores are less comparable to each other than the first pair.

Figure 4. Illustration of pairs of MCAT total scores and their overlapping confidence bands.

How can percentile ranks help with the interpretation of applicants’ MCAT scores?

MCAT score reports provide percentile ranks—one for each section score and one for the total score. Percentile ranks show how the scores of individual applicants compare with the scores of others who took the exam. The percentile ranks show the percentages of test takers who received the same or lower scores on the exam.

Percentile ranks allow you to compare the performance of your applicants with others who took the exam.

For example, the MCAT total score in Figure 3 is 501. It has a percentile rank of 54%. This means that 54% of MCAT scores were equal to or less than 501.

504 vs 503

504 vs 502

504 vs 501

504 vs 500

498 506505504503502501500499

Applicants' Scores



Every year on May 1, the percentile ranks for MCAT scores are updated using data from one or more previous testing years. This is a common industry practice and helps ensure that percentile ranks reflect current information about applicants’ scores. Eventually, the updates for MCAT scores will be based on the scores of the test takers from the previous three administration years. The current percentile ranks are based on data from the 2015 and 2016 examinees.

Because examinees change from one year to the next, the percentile ranks associated with scaled scores change over time. Basing the percentiles on data for three administration years instead of one year makes results more stable, but it doesn’t prevent the possibility of year-to-year changes.

That is why MCAT scaled scores have more meaning than percentile ranks. The methods that MCAT developers use to write test questions and build and equate test forms keep the meaning of scale scores constant over test forms and time. The exam is not graded on a curve. No matter when applicants tested, who they tested with, or what test forms they took, their scaled scores have common interpretations. Scaled scores describe applicants’ preparation in relation to a fixed body of knowledge and skill. They compare the knowledge and skill that applicants demonstrated on the exam with the body of knowledge that faculty described as prerequisite for entering medical students when the new exam was developed.

Appendix B shows the MCAT total and section score percentile ranks that will be in effect from May 1, 2017, to April 30, 2018. Again, these percentile ranks are based on the scores of everyone who took the new exam in 2015 and 2016.

How can score profiles help triangulate MCAT scores with other information about academic preparation?

Score profiles highlight applicants’ strengths and weaknesses across the four sections of the exam through reported scores for each section. Figure 5 illustrates the score profile that appears in the MCAT score report. Applicants’ strengths and weaknesses on the exam can be considered along with other information about applicants’ academic preparation (e.g., coursework and grades) and in relation to your institution’s missions and goals.

Applicants’ strengths and weaknesses on the exam should be considered along with other information about applicants’ academic preparation (e.g., coursework and grades) and in relation to your institution’s missions and goals.

Figure 5. Illustration of the score profile in the MCAT score report.

MCAT Score Profile

Section Score Profile1

Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems

Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills

Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems

Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior

1. For the four sections, nonoverlapping confidence bands show a test taker’s likely strengths and weaknesses. Overlapping confidence bands suggest that there are not meaningful differences in performance between sections.

118 125 132

118 125 132

118 125 132

118 125 132


1212

Understanding the Examinees Who Took the New MCAT Exam in 2015 and 2016

This section answers four questions about the examinees who sat for the new MCAT exam in 2015 and 2016:

• What are the characteristics of examinees who took the new MCAT exam?

• How did examinees prepare for the new MCAT exam?

• How did examinees perform on the new MCAT exam?

• How do examinees’ scores change when they retake the new MCAT exam, and how do admissions officers use scores for applicants who test more than once?

What are the characteristics of examinees who took the new MCAT exam?

This section provides information about the characteristics of examinees who took the new MCAT exam.

More than 125,000 examinees took the new exam in 2015 and 2016. See Figure 6 for data about the characteristics and experiences of these examinees. Their characteristics were similar to those of previous test takers. Before the introduction of this exam, there was concern that some groups of examinees would be more reticent than others to take the new exam, but examinees from various backgrounds took the new exam in the same proportions as in previous years.

The characteristics and experiences of examinees who tested in 2015 and 2016 were similar to those who tested in previous years.

Figure 6. Percentage of examinees taking the new MCAT exam by gender, race/ethnicity, fee assistance status, testing condition, and repeater status (N = 125,262).

Association of American Medical Colleges


13

How did examinees prepare for the new MCAT exam?

This section describes several ways examinees prepared for the MCAT exam.

The new MCAT exam, introduced in 2015, tests concepts from first-semester biochemistry, psychology, and sociology courses and courses in biology, chemistry, and physics, and it asks examinees to demonstrate that they can reason about research and data.

Data about the courses examinees completed show how they prepared in these areas (see Figure 7). As in the past, almost all examinees took biology, chemistry, and physics courses. Most examinees also took courses in biochemistry, psychology, and statistics before testing; many took courses in sociology and research methods. The numbers of examinees taking courses in biochemistry, psychology, sociology, and statistics were higher than in the past.

Before the introduction of the new MCAT exam, there was concern that the use of test preparation courses to get ready for the new MCAT exam would increase. However, the percentages of examinees who took commercial or university- or medical-school-based preparation courses before sitting for the new exam were similar to the percentages who took preparation courses in the past, with about half the examinees taking preparation courses for the redesigned test.

More examinees took biochemistry, psychology, sociology, and statistics courses than in the past.

In addition to taking test preparation courses, examinees prepared for the new MCAT exam in a variety of other ways. Forty-seven percent of examinees reported using the new Khan Academy MCAT collection, which includes free, online, video-based lessons and test questions covering concepts and reasoning skills tested on the new MCAT exam. On the AAMC’s Post-MCAT Questionnaire, many respondents reported reading on their own, taking online courses, or volunteering or working in research labs or other settings that provided exposure to topics tested on the MCAT exam. (The Post-MCAT Questionnaire 2016 Report is available at aamc.org/data/pmq.)

Figure 7. Percentages of examinees taking the new MCAT exam who completed college coursework in the natural, behavioral, and social sciences or who prepared for the MCAT exam through Khan Academy or a test preparation class.1





How did examinees perform on the new MCAT exam?

This section describes the scores obtained by examinees who took the new exam. Figure 8 shows the distribution of MCAT total scores from exams administered in 2015 and 2016. These data include scores for students who tested more than once. The mean MCAT total score was 500, and the standard deviation was 10.5. Means and standard deviations for the section scores also appear in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Distribution of new MCAT total scores for exams administered in 2015 and 2016 (N = 150,893).1



Figure 9 shows the distributions of new MCAT total scores overall and scores for examinees from different sociodemographic groups and examinees who tested under standard and nonstandard testing conditions, as well as first- and second-attempt scores for examinees who took the new exam more than once. It uses box-and-whisker plots to show the median (50th-percentile) score, along with 10th-, 25th-, 75th-, and 90th-percentile scores. The 10th- and 90th-percentile scores are shown by the ends of the “whiskers,” the 25th- and 75th-percentile scores are shown by the “box” (the left edge of each box shows the 25th-percentile score, and the right edge shows the 75th-percentile score), and the median is shown by the vertical bar inside each box. For example, for female examinees, the 10th-, 25th-, median-, 75th-, and 90th-percentile scores were 485, 491, 499, 507, and 513, respectively. The mean MCAT total score for each group appears in parentheses by the group label.

For every group, there are examinees with scores near the bottom, at the middle, and near the top of the new MCAT total score scale.

Comparing these box-and-whisker plots for examinees from different sociodemographic groups shows the overlap in scores between groups—the boxes span similar, wide ranges of scores. However, the median scores differ by group, and these differences are similar to differences on the old exam and on other standardized tests.

Figure 9. New MCAT total scores for 2015−2016 examinees overall and by gender, race/ethnicity, fee assistance status, testing condition, and repeater status (N = 150,893).1

16

Males scored slightly higher than females, majority examinees scored higher than examinees from groups underrepresented in medicine, and examinees who did not receive fee assistance scored slightly higher than those who did.1 The differences between nonrepeaters and repeaters on the new exam are similar to the differences on the old exam.

None of the many individuals who helped design and develop the new exam sought to replicate the differences seen on the old exam. Concerns about fairness played a critical role in developing the new exam blueprints and, particularly, in ensuring that the concepts and skills tested on the new exam are taught widely—aiming for equity in access to opportunities to learn the concepts and skills tested on the exam for those from different backgrounds and who attend different types of schools. The designers also addressed fairness through increased testing time, providing applicants with more working time per question than they had on the old exam. The new MCAT exam also balances testing in the natural sciences with testing in the behavioral and social sciences and critical analysis and reasoning. The hope is that this balance will help diversify the physician workforce by making the exam and medical school application more attractive to individuals from more varied academic and demographic backgrounds. Finally, the designers of the test recommended that ample free and low-cost preparation materials be made available so that all aspiring physicians have access to resources and information needed to prepare for the exam.

The MCAT Validity Committee is looking for points of leverage to provide equity in access to resources and information needed to prepare for the MCAT exam.

As described in the last section of this guide (page 24), admissions officers and researchers from a diverse group of medical schools, in collaboration with two prehealth advisors and the AAMC, are evaluating the validity of the new MCAT exam. Their research has already begun to examine the coursework, test preparation courses, materials, and other strategies that examinees use when preparing for the MCAT exam. This committee is studying trends and looking for points of leverage to improve equity in opportunities for individuals from different backgrounds, especially those who have been historically disadvantaged, to prepare for the MCAT exam. As medical student performance data become available, the committee will also evaluate whether scores from the new exam predict performance equally well for medical students from different sociodemographic backgrounds.

How do examinees’ scores change when they retake the new MCAT exam, and how do admissions officers use scores for applicants who test more than once?

This section describes the scores obtained by examinees who took the new exam more than once and how admissions officers work with scores from applicants with more than one set of scores.

MCAT examinees can test up to three times in one calendar year, four times across two calendar years, and a lifetime limit of seven times. Since the introduction of the new exam in April 2015, about 18% of examinees have tested more than once.

Analyses of MCAT total scores for test takers who test more than once can give admissions committee members a sense of the types of score gains obtained by examinees testing multiple times. Figure 10 uses box-and-whisker plots (described earlier for Figure 9) to illustrate the distribution of score gains (and losses) on examinees’ second attempts at the MCAT exam. These results are from examinees who initially sat for the MCAT exam in 2015 or 2016 and then tested a second time.


1. The similarities and differences in these data are similar to those reported in the literature for the MCAT exam and other admissions tests (Davis et al 2013; Roth et al 2001; Sackett and Shen 2010). Recent research on the old version of the MCAT exam suggests that these differences in MCAT total scores for racial/ethnic minorities do not reflect test bias (Davis et al 2013).

17

Figure 10. Changes in new MCAT total scores for examinees who retest.1




The data show that retesters across a wide range of scores tend to obtain higher scores on their second exams. Only at the highest score range is the median score gain zero.

Figure 10 shows that the median gain for examinees who tested a second time and whose initial scores ranged from 472 to 513 was two to three score points; for examinees whose initial scores ranged from 514 to 517, one point; and for examinees whose initial scores ranged from 518 to 528, zero points. It is important to note, however, that there was considerable variation in the magnitude and direction of score changes, with some examinees posting increases or decreases greater than four points.

A recent survey (described earlier) asked admissions officers how they work with retesters’ MCAT total scores in the admissions process (AAMC and SRA International, Inc. 2016). The results showed that admissions officers use a number of strategies for examining retesters’ scores. For example, some admissions committees use all exam scores in conjunction with other information about academic preparation that might explain any score changes. Other admissions committees use each applicant’s most recent exam scores in the admissions process, others use each applicant’s “best score” as represented by the highest total score from a single attempt, and still others compute the average total score across the multiple attempts.

It is important for admissions officers to examine the information in applicants’ transcripts and applications in interpreting retesters’ scores. For example, gains in applicants’ scores over time might be explained by completion of a postbaccalaureate program or other coursework.




Understanding the Applicants Who Submitted New Scores in the 2016 and 2017 Admissions Cycles

This section answers three questions about the characteristics of the 2016 and 2017 admissions cycles:

• What did the 2016 admissions cycle look like?

• What strategies were used by admissions committees that accepted more applicants with scores in the middle of the new score scale in 2016 than they accepted in the middle of the old score scale in the past?

• What were the MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of applicants who submitted new scores in the 2017 admissions cycle?

What did the 2016 admissions cycle look like?

This section describes the characteristics of the 2016 admissions cycle, with specific information about the ways this cycle differed from admissions cycles in the past.

The 2016 admissions cycle was like no other before. This was the first time that admissions officers and their committees worked with scores from the new MCAT exam. More than half (53%) of the 2016 applicants applied with scores from the new exam. About 30% of applicants submitted scores from the new exam only, and 22% submitted scores from both exams. Finally, just under half (47%) submitted scores from the old version of the MCAT exam only.

Given the quarter-century use of the old MCAT exam in medical school admissions, admissions committees knew which scores they were looking for on that exam. They did not have this same rich understanding of scores from the new MCAT exam because 2016 was its debut in medical school admissions. Admissions committees were establishing new conventions for weighing MCAT scores in relation to other application data without information about the score ranges that signaled the academic preparation needed to succeed in their medical school curricula. In addition, early in the admissions cycle, medical schools received more applications with old scores than new scores because the new version of the MCAT exam was administered only a few times before the start of the admissions cycle.

Similarly, prospective applicants were deciding if and where to apply to medical school with less information than previous applicants had about the score ranges that would be competitive. They may have reasoned that admissions committees would weigh coursework, undergraduate GPAs, and other information about academic preparation more heavily than MCAT scores until they determined what score ranges would spell likely success in medical school.

The AAMC provided percentile-rank tables for the new exam and other resources to help medical schools use the new scores in the 2016 admissions cycle. Medical schools used a variety of strategies to evaluate the new scores in the 2016 selection. Some of them are described below.

What strategies were used by admissions committees that accepted more applicants with scores in the middle of the new score scale in 2016 than they accepted in the middle of the old score scale in the past?

This section describes the strategies that some medical schools used to work with new MCAT scores to help them meet their admissions goals.

To learn more about the conventions that admissions committees used in their first year working with scores from the new exam, the AAMC interviewed admissions deans from eight medical schools.1 These deans were selected because their committees accepted more applicants with scores in the middle of the new score scale in 2016 than


1. These eight medical schools were from all four U.S. geographic regions and included both public and private schools, as well as new and long-standing medical schools.



they accepted in the middle of the old score scale in earlier application cycles. These deans were among those whose schools had the greatest proportional increases in accepted applicants from the middle of the new score scale. The interviews focused on the strategies that admissions committees used to select their 2016 entrants.

Their interviews started with questions about schools’ admissions goals and selection strategies; they continued with questions about the work that admissions deans and their committees did to prepare for the 2016 application cycle. Questions also focused on MCAT score reports and committee members’ use of total and section scores, scale scores, percentiles, confidence bands, and score profiles. Interviews lasted about an hour. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and qualitative methods were used to analyze the response data.

In the 2016 admissions cycle, some medical schools accepted more applicants with new scores in the middle of the new score distribution than they accepted in the past with old scores.

Five themes stood out from the many interesting things admissions deans reported in their interviews.

First, several deans reported that in the 2016 admissions cycle, their committees gave less weight to scores from the new exam than they gave to scores from the old exam in the past. Almost without exception, these deans said that their committees used the transition to the new exam as a way to recharge what they already knew about holistic review practices. One dean explained that his committee members “rebroadened their view of what they thought would make a good medical student.” Another said his committee weighed other data about academic preparation from applications and transcripts more heavily than it had in the past. A third said that she “took advantage of the latitude” that came with the absence of empirical and experiential data on the relationship between new MCAT scores and students’ performance in medical school. This theme was punctuated by a fourth admissions dean, who said, “The upper right corner of the (old) MCAT-GPA acceptance grid indicates the percent of applicants who do not get accepted. . . . [T]hat is the best piece of information in the world. That information tells committees that one in ten applicants with perfect scores doesn’t get accepted to any medical schools.”

Second, in their interviews, several admissions deans reported that they used lower score thresholds on the new exam than they used on the old exam. Working with percentiles on the old and new exams, they said that they set lower thresholds for their secondary application and interview pools. One dean said that he “specifically set a threshold that was just a little bit lower than the threshold we considered on the old exam.” Another explained that her school “took the lowest MCAT percentile they had taken in the previous four or five years” and used that to set the new score threshold. A third dean said his school “didn’t want to be as restrictive in 2016 due to a lack of experience,” and a fourth said her committee was “willing to be more inclusive and took a wait-and-see approach.”

Third, all but a couple of the admissions deans reported that they used published data showing that students who entered medical school with scores in the middle of the old score scale did well in medical school. They knew that the vast majority of these students graduated in four or five years and passed their licensure exams on the first try. The deans who talked about these data said that they and their committees presumed that the new scores would operate similarly, and in the 2016 cycle, they admitted interesting applicants with scores in the middle of the new score scale. One dean explained that her school set its threshold at 500, saying that “the new MCAT gave us the opportunity to bring in students who are disadvantaged, not just socioeconomically but maybe educationally, who are lagging behind a little bit but probably have the capacity to perform well and be successful in medical school.” Another admissions dean told a similar story and said she is hopeful that the “500 benchmark will pan out as expected.”



Fourth, in their interviews, two of the admissions deans reported that their committee members liked the higher reliabilities for the new section scores and felt comfortable accepting applicants who posted moderate total scores when one or more of an applicant’s section scores were strong. One dean pointed out that a lackluster section score could result in a “middling total score” and said that she and her colleagues used data on courses and grades from applicants’ transcripts to decide whether outlier section scores were concerning or not.

Finally, more than a couple of the admissions deans used the transition to the new exam to “seize the day.” These deans reported that they wanted to change their admissions practices, and they used the transition to the new exam as an opportunity to instigate changes they’d already considered and for which they had leadership support. One dean explained, “The perfect storm of it was the MCAT was brand new. . . . If there was any year in which I could swing for the fences and just go for it and figure out the horizon and margin of the predictive validity of this exam at our school, it’s the first year out of the gate.” This dean went on to say she “. . . created a three-stage process with rubrics for review and rubrics for interview and rubrics for selection, and she established an executive committee . . . that based their decisions on this wide breadth of scores, and the MCAT was not a make-or-break component of the application.”

At every one of these schools, increases in the numbers of accepted applicants with scores in the middle of the new score scale translated into increases in the percentages of underrepresented and disadvantaged applicants with scores from the new exam who were accepted. On this point, one dean closed her interview by saying that this 2016 admissions cycle “was kind of an exciting and good opportunity to see a wider range of students.” She said that “diversity is important for our patients and for our students.”

What were the MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of applicants who submitted new scores in the 2017 admissions cycle?

This section of the guide presents preliminary data from the 2017 admissions cycle, including MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs for applicants who sat for the new MCAT exam. It also describes preliminary acceptance data for these applicants. Together, these data provide a view of applicants’ decisions to apply to medical school with scores from the new exam and admissions committees’ decisions about acceptance offers. The information is designed to help you think about your applicants in the 2018 admissions cycle, most of whom will apply with scores from the new MCAT exam.

In the 2017 admissions cycle, there were about 51,200 applicants, and almost 90% of them applied with scores from the new MCAT exam. Figure 11 uses box-and-whisker plots to show the distribution of new MCAT scores for 2015 and 2016 examinees who took the new exam and for all 2017 applicants who submitted scores from the new MCAT exam. The median total score on the new MCAT exam for 2015 and 2016 examinees was 500, and for 2017 applicants who submitted new scores, it was 505. Figure 11 shows that the 2017 applicants who took the new MCAT exam applied with a wide range of MCAT scores.

Figure 11. New MCAT total scores for 2015–2016 examinees and for 2017 applicants who submitted scores from the new MCAT exam.




Table 2 shows the MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs for the pool of 2017 applicants who took the new MCAT exam. The columns show the ranges of MCAT total scores, and the rows show the ranges of undergraduate GPAs. The rightmost column shows the applicants who applied with GPAs in each range, across all MCAT scores. For example, 25% of the applicants who submitted scores from the new exam applied with undergraduate GPAs between 3.60 and 3.79.

Similarly, the bottom row of the table shows the applicants who applied with MCAT total scores in each range, across all undergraduate GPAs. For example, 12% of the applicants who submitted scores from the new exam applied with MCAT total scores between 498 and 501.

2017 applicants who took the new exam applied with a wide range of MCAT scores.

In each cell, the bolded percentage represents the percentage of applicants (out of the 44,543 2017 applicants who sat for the new exam) who applied with MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs in the given range. The number below each percentage indicates the number of applicants represented in that percentage. The shading shows MCAT score and GPA ranges that include 1% or more of the applicant pool. For example, 4% of the applicant pool (1,672 of 44,543 applicants) who took the new exam applied with GPAs ranging from 3.80 to 4.00 and MCAT total scores ranging from 502 to 505.

The data in Table 2 and in Figure 11 tell a consistent story: Individuals with a wide range of undergraduate GPAs and MCAT scores applied in the 2017 admissions cycle.

Table 2. For 2017 Applicants with Scores From the New MCAT Exam, the Percentage and Number of Applicants by MCAT Total Score and Undergraduate GPA Range

GPA Total 472–485 486–489 490–493 494–497 498–501 502–505 506–509 510–513 514–517 518–528 All3.80–4.00 <1% <1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4% 28%

53 98 246 532 1,045 1,672 2,287 2,433 2,097 1,997 12,4603.60–3.79 <1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 5% 3% 2% 25%

127 226 453 882 1,409 1,984 2,208 2,014 1,291 752 11,3463.40–3.59 <1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1% 20%

182 305 544 960 1,279 1,617 1,646 1,238 655 325 8,7513.20–3.39 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% <1% 13%

226 307 537 741 884 1013 866 624 309 108 5,6153.00–3.19 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% <1% <1% 7%

244 257 373 481 507 507 389 279 103 55 3,1952.80–2.99 1% <1% <1% 1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 4%

250 180 200 236 233 203 158 84 49 12 1,6052.60–2.79 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% -- 2%

159 120 138 132 123 78 57 36 15 7 8652.40–2.59 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% -- -- 1%

119 58 46 58 41 29 24 17 4 1 3972.20–2.39 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% -- -- <1%

72 27 24 22 16 11 12 7 0 1 1922.00–2.19 <1% <1% <1% <1% -- -- -- -- <1%

41 12 10 10 4 6 2 1 0 0 86<2.00 <1% -- -- -- -- <1%

15 6 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 31All 3% 4% 6% 9% 12% 16% 17% 15% 10% 7% 100%

1,488 1,596 2,577 4,057 5,541 7,121 7,649 6,733 4,523 3,258 44,543

MCAT Total

Notes:• The percentages show the numbers of applicants with new MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs in given ranges divided by the number of applicants with new scores.• Blue shading = at least 1% of the applicants reported MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs in this range.• Dashes = cells with fewer than 10 observations; blank cells = cells with 0 observations.• For students who took the new MCAT exam multiple times, the most recent MCAT total score in the 2017 application cycle was used in this analysis.



Table 3 shows the MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs for the pool of applicants with scores from the new MCAT exam who received one or more acceptances by April 12, 2017. More than 15,250 applicants with new scores had received one or more acceptance offers by this date.2 These applicants are a subset of those who will be accepted in the 2017 admissions cycle. They represent about 80% of the applicants who will be accepted.

The shading in the table shows the ranges of MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of the applicants accepted by this date. Because the application cycle is incomplete and the acceptance rates will change, the cells use shading rather than numbers to show acceptance decisions to date. The shading shows the MCAT score and GPA ranges that include 1% or more of the accepted pool. The shaded areas in Tables 2 and 3 highlight the fact that 2017 applicants with a wide range of new MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs received acceptances in the 2017 admissions cycle.

Table 3. For 2017 Applicants with Scores from the New MCAT Exam Who Received One or More Acceptance Offers, Preliminary Data on the Percentage and Number of Accepted Applicants by MCAT Total Score and Undergraduate GPA Range

GPA Total 472–485 486–489 490–493 494–497 498–501 502–505 506–509 510–513 514–517 518–528 All3.80–4.00 -- -- † 48%

7,3193.60–3.79 -- † 29%

4,4603.40–3.59 † † 14%

0 0 2,1323.20–3.39 -- † † 6%

0 0 4 8873.00–3.19 † † † † † † † 2%

0 0 0 3132.80–2.99 -- -- -- † † † -- -- 1%

0 0 8 5 1002.60–2.79 -- -- -- -- -- -- <1%

0 0 332.40–2.59 -- -- -- -- -- <1%

0 0 0 3 0 142.20–2.39 -- -- --

0 0 0 0 0 22.00–2.19 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0<2.00 0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0All -- -- <1% 2% 6% 12% 19% 24% 20% 17% 100%

1 5 42 295 871 1,881 2,961 3,633 3,012 2,559 15,260

MCAT Total

Notes:• The percentages in the right-most column and bottom row show the numbers of accepted applicants with new MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs in given ranges divided by the number of applicants with new scores who received at least one acceptance.• Blue shading = 1% or more of the acceptances were given to applicants in this GPA and MCAT total score range.• † = cells with 10 or more observations for which between 0.01% and 0.99% of the acceptances were given to applicants in this GPA and MCAT total score range.• In the rightmost column and bottom row of the table, dashes = cells with fewer than 10 observations; blank cells = cells with 0 observations.• For students who took the new MCAT exam multiple times, the most recent MCAT total score in the 2017 application cycle was used in this analysis.

2. Although the 2017 admissions cycle was in progress at the time this guide was prepared, about 80% of the projected pool of accepted applicants had been identified. These data were obtained from AAMC databases and included application data from both American Medical College Application Service® (AMCAS®) and non-AMCAS (e.g., Texas Medical and Dental Schools Application Service, or TMDSAS) schools.


Understanding the Predictive Validity of Scores from the New MCAT Exam

This section answers three questions about the validity of scores from the new MCAT exam:

• What information is available about the predictive validity of scores from the new MCAT exam?

• What else will we learn about the fairness, impact, use, and predictive validity of the new MCAT exam?

• What key findings from the MCAT validity research will be released over the next three years?

What information is available about the predictive validity of scores from the new MCAT exam?

Predictive validity data are already available for the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section of the new MCAT exam. Beginning in 2013, researchers from 11 medical schools partnered with the AAMC to examine the predictive validity of scores from this section. This is the section of the new exam that is most different from the old one, which is why it was selected for early study.

This section describes this study, explains its purpose, summarizes the methodology, and presents results that suggest that scores from the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section are likely to predict medical students’ academic performance in courses and clerkships and on exams that draw on the behavioral and social sciences.

These predictive validity data will help admissions committees, faculty, and other stakeholders understand how scores from the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of the Behavior section of the MCAT exam might contribute to decisions about the academic preparation needed to be ready for medical school. This early research was especially important because this section tested concepts and reasoning skills not previously tested on the MCAT exam.

In 2013, researchers administered a prototype of the test to more than 2,000 first- and second-year medical students before they started the school year. The researchers then correlated students’ prototype scores with outcomes such as grades and test scores from medical school courses and clerkships that draw on the behavioral and social sciences.

As displayed in Figure 12, results from the first cohort of medical students—those who entered medical school in 2012 and are now finished—show that scores from the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section correlate with medical students’ performance in courses, on tests, and in clerkships that draw on the behavioral and social sciences. Figure 12 shows median correlations between scores on this section and students’ academic performance in four types of preclerkship courses, subscores from sections of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 exam that test related behavioral sciences concepts, and six types of clerkships.

Scores from this new section correlate with performance in behavioral and social sciences courses, such as foundations of psychiatric/behavioral medicine, epidemiology/public health, and neuroscience. These median correlations exceed the standard for a medium effect in the social sciences (Cohen 1992).

Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior scores are likely to predict academic performance in medical school courses, clerkships, and USMLE Step 1 sections with behavioral and social sciences content.

The researchers in this study also included outcomes from foundations of clinical medicine courses that are taught in the first two years of medical school. They included outcomes from these courses as a contrast because they did not expect prototype scores from this section to be strong predictors of students’ performance in coursework aimed at introducing students to history taking, interview skills, and other behavioral skills taught in these early courses. Figure 12 shows that scores from this section correlated less well with performance in foundations of clinical medicine courses. These contrasting findings provide early evidence about the kinds of medical school outcomes that scores from this section are and are not likely to predict.

25

Scores from this new section also correlate with students’ scores on the behavioral sciences section of the USMLE Step 1 exam and academic performance in related clerkships. Importantly, they show that scores from this prototype section of the new exam correlate most highly with performance in family medicine clerkships and least well with performance in general/internal medicine clerkships. These results suggest that Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior scores may correlate well with related medical student performance throughout the medical school curriculum.

Figure 12. Median correlations between the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section scores and 2012 entering medical students’ academic performance in four types of preclerkship courses, relevant subscores from the USMLE Step 1 exam, and six clerkships.1





The study also examined associations between the scores from the old MCAT exam that participating students entered medical school with and these same measures of academic performance. Like the results for scores from the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section, most of the correlations between scores from the old MCAT exam and course grades in foundations of psychiatric/behavioral medicine are medium in size, but they are lower than those for the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior prototype (see Figure 13). Collectively, these data suggest that scores from the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section are likely to predict medical students’ academic performance in preclerkship courses, on clinical science subject exams taken in clerkships, and on the USMLE Step 1 sections with behavioral and social sciences content.

Figure 13. Comparison of median correlations between new and old MCAT section scores and 2012 entering medical students’ academic performance in foundations of psychiatric/behavioral medicine courses.1

What else will we learn about the fairness, impact, use, and predictive validity of the new MCAT exam?

This section describes the full scope of the research being done on the new MCAT exam, including three specific areas of inquiry: 1) diversity, fairness, and academic preparation, 2) admissions decision making, and 3) predicting medical student performance.

The predictive validity research conducted on the prototype version of the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section described in the section above is only the beginning of the work that researchers are doing to evaluate the redesigned MCAT exam. Admissions officers and researchers from 18 medical schools are designing and conducting a validity research program to study the new exam. Table 4 shows the schools represented on the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior Validity Committee and the broader MCAT Validity Committee.



Table 4. Medical Schools Represented on the Two MCAT Validity Committees

Participating Medical SchoolPsychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of

Behavior Validity CommitteeMCAT Validity Committee

Boston University School of Medicine ü ü

Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons ü ü

East Tennessee State University James H. Quillen College of Medicine ü

Meharry Medical College ü ü

Memorial University of Newfoundland Faculty of Medicine ü ü

Morehouse School of Medicine ü

Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine ü

Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School ü

Saint Louis University School of Medicine ü

Stanford University School of Medicine ü

The Ohio State University College of Medicine ü

University of Texas School of Medicine at San Antonio ü ü

Tulane University School of Medicine ü

University of Arizona College of Medicine - Tucson ü

University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine ü

University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine ü ü

University of Central Florida College of Medicine ü

University of Illinois College of Medicine ü ü

University of Mississippi School of Medicine ü ü

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine ü

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine

ü

Note: Prehealth advisors from Colgate University and Meredith College are also members of the MCAT Validity Committee.

The MCAT Validity Committee established a research agenda to study the fairness, use, impact, and predictive validity of scores from the new exam. The validity research agenda includes three areas of investigation with related research questions about the use of the new exam and its impact on examinees, applicants, medical students, and medical school admissions committees.

The MCAT Validity Committee is examining the fairness, use, impact, and predictive value of scores from the new exam.

For example, one of the major goals of this research is to determine how well total and section scores from the new MCAT exam predict performance in medical school. The MCAT Validity Committee will carefully examine how students prepare for and perform on the new exam and whether there are ways to improve the information and resources that are available to underperforming students. These researchers will also study the ways that MCAT scores are used with other information about academic preparation, experiences, and attributes in admissions decision making.



Figure 14 shows the three areas of investigation in the MCAT validity research agenda along with sample research questions. The text that follows provides more information about each area. The AAMC’s website contains a report that describes the research agenda in more detail (aamc.org/mcatvalidityresearch).

Figure 14. MCAT validity research agenda: the three areas of investigation and sample research questions.

Diversity, fairness, and academic preparation

The MCAT Validity Committee has begun examining data related to diversity and fairness. They are monitoring for differences in the demographic makeup of examinees who take the new exam compared with the makeup of examinees who took the old exam. They are looking for trends that might suggest that one or more examinee groups are taking the new exam less frequently than in the past. The committee is also looking closely at how the group differences on the new exam compare with differences on the old exam and on other standardized tests. When data are available, the committee will ask important questions about whether scores from the MCAT exam predict performance equally well for medical students from different sociodemographic backgrounds.

The MCAT Validity Committee is also studying academic preparation trends, including coursework and other ways of learning the content, such as reading on one’s own or participating in study groups. The committee is looking carefully at differences in preparation for examinees from different sociodemographic backgrounds to understand how the opposing forces of academic preparation and disadvantage influence test scores. Understanding these factors will help the committee look for ways to improve the information and resources available to educationally disadvantaged students.

Admissions decision making

Research on the use of MCAT scores in admissions decision making is also underway. The committee is studying the use of new MCAT scores in the 2016 and 2017 admissions cycles—the first cycles in which applicants submitted new scores—to look for changes in the ways admissions officers and their committees work with new MCAT scores.

Do scores from the new MCAT exam predict

academic performance equally well for students

from different demographic groups?

Do admissions committees balance the weight of MCAT scores

with experience, attributes and demographics?

Do scores from the new MCAT exam predict

academic performance in all four years

of medical school?

Predicting Academic Performance

Admissions Decision Making

Diversity, Fairness, and Academic Preparation



The MCAT Validity Committee will also administer a follow-up survey in the summer of 2017 to gather data about the impact of the new exam on medical school admissions processes, admissions decisions, and how scores from the new MCAT exam are being used. This survey will be administered at the close of the 2017 admissions cycle, after admissions committees have worked for two years with scores from the new exam.

Predicting students’ academic performance in medical school

The value of scores from the old MCAT exam in predicting students’ performance in medical school has been well established (Donnon et al 2007; Dunleavy et al 2013; Julian 2005; Koenig and Wiley 1997; Kroopnick et al 2013; Kuncel and Hezlett 2007). Studies show that undergraduate grades and scores from the old MCAT exam predict students’ grades in medical school, academic difficulty or distinction, scores on USMLE Step exams, time to graduation, and unimpeded progress toward graduation. The MCAT Validity Committee will be extending this research and the research conducted by the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior Validity Committee, examining the value of total and section scores from the new MCAT exam in predicting students’ academic performance in all four years of medical school.

The 18 medical schools participating in the MCAT validity research will collect medical student performance data from entry through graduation for students who enter medical school with new scores in 2016 and 2017. They will examine the association of MCAT scores with academic performance in medical school courses and clerkships, USMLE Step exam scores, time to graduation, and graduation rates. These data will be reported on a regular basis beginning with data about the association between new MCAT scores and academic performance in students’ initial courses.

The individual medical school, or local, data will answer questions about the association between MCAT scores and outcomes tied to the medical school curriculum, such as student performance in courses, on locally maintained tests, and on important markers of progression throughout the curriculum. The value of the local data is that with them, MCAT scores can be seen in the context of an individual medical school with its unique mission, characteristics, curricula, support, and student body.

The value of the local data is that with them, MCAT scores can be seen in the context of an individual medical school with its unique mission, characteristics, curricula, support, and student body.

Studying the association between MCAT scores and students’ academic performance in medical school will take time. Figure 15 shows a timeline for reporting the first available data. The association between MCAT scores and academic performance in year 1 of medical school will first be available at the end of 2017, and year 2 findings will first be available at the end of 2018. As shown in Figure 15, it will take several years to see how well MCAT scores predict graduation in four or five years.

Figure 15. Timeline for reporting initial results from the predictive validity research.

Year 1 coursework Year 2 coursework USMLE Step 1Clerkships

Graduate in 4 years

Graduate in 5 years

USMLE Step 2-CK

USMLE Step 2-CS

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

30

The research design for the predictive validity studies will also include national-level data. The national data will answer questions about the value of new MCAT scores in predicting the performance of medical students attending all U.S.-accredited medical schools. The MCAT Validity Committee will study the associations between new MCAT scores and national outcomes such as performance on the licensure exams, withdrawal or dismissal for academic reasons, and completing medical school with unimpeded progress. These national outcomes have meaning for all U.S. medical schools, but they cannot answer questions about things that are important to an individual medical school.

What key findings from the MCAT validity research will be released over the next three years?

This section provides details about when and where MCAT validity research findings will be available over the course of the next three years.

Figure 16 shows the data about examinees’ academic preparation and diversity, the use of MCAT scores in admissions decisions, and the predictive validity of the new exam that will be shared in multiple venues and formats over the next three years. In addition to data-based reports, the MCAT Validity Committee will share information about the overarching research agenda and goals; its work to define societal, procedural, and exam fairness that guides their research; and its work to identify the factors that may affect the predictive validity of MCAT scores at schools that vary in terms of their curricula, missions and goals, applicant pools, and other characteristics.

Each year, this guide to using MCAT scores in medical student selection will include updated findings. In addition, research reports will be posted on the Admissions Hub of the AAMC website (aamc.org/admissions), in peer-reviewed presentations, and at regional and national meetings. The AAMC invites admissions officers and their committees (as well as other stakeholders) to share the types of research questions that the MCAT Validity Committee should consider as it carries out its research agenda.

Figure 16. Validity findings to be released over the next three years.

2017–2020

Findings about the academic preparation and demographic diversity of examinees who sit for the new MCAT exam

Findings about how admissions officers are using new MCAT scores in admissions decisions

Findings about how well scores from the new MCAT

exam predict students’ academic performance

across the first two years of medical school



31

References

Association of American Medical Colleges. Post-MCAT Questionnaire Report. Available at http://www.aamc.org/data/pmq. Accessed April 25, 2017.

Association of American Medical Colleges and SRA International, Inc. Survey of Admissions Officers About the Use and Importance of Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) Scores in Medical School Admissions: U.S. Data Display and Table Survey Results. Washington, DC: AAMC; 2016.

Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155-159.

Davis D, Dorsey JK, Franks RD, Sackett PR, Searcy CA, Zhao X. Do racial and ethnic group differences in performance on the MCAT exam reflect test bias? Acad Med. 2013;88(5):593-602.

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;82:100-106.

Dunleavy DM, Kroopnick MH, Dowd KW, Searcy CA, Zhao X. The predictive validity of the MCAT exam in relation to academic performance through medical school: a national cohort study of 2001–2004 matriculants. Acad Med. 2013;88(5):666-671.

Dunleavy DM, Sondheimer H, Castillo-Page L, Bletzinger RB. Medical school admissions: more than grades and test scores. AIB. 2011;11(6).

Julian ER. Validity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting medical school performance. Acad Med. 2005;80:910-917.

Koenig JA, Wiley A. Medical school admission testing. In: Dillon RF, ed. Handbook on Testing. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; 1997;274-295.

Kroopnick MH, Dunleavy DM, Dowd KW, Searcy CA, Zhao X. A comprehensive school-level analysis of the predictive validity of the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Paper presented at: American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting; 2013; San Francisco, CA.

Kuncel NR, Hezlett SA. Standardized tests predict graduate students’ success. Science. 2007;315:1080-1081.

Mitchell K, Haynes R, Koenig JA. Assessing the validity of the updated Medical College Admission Test. Acad Med. 1994;69:394-401.

Monroe A, Quinn E, Samuelson W, Dunleavy D, Dowd K. An overview of the medical school admission process and use of applicant data in decision making: what has changed since the 1980s? Acad Med. 2013;88:672-681.

Roth PL, Bevier CA, Bobko P, Switzer FS III, Tyler P. Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol. 2001;54:297-330.

Sackett PR, Shen W. Subgroup differences on cognitive tests in contexts other than personnel selection. In: Outtz JL, ed. Adverse Impact: Implications for Organizational Staffing and High Stakes Selection. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group; 2010;323-346.

Schwartzstein RM, Rosenfeld GC, Hilborn R, Oyewole SH, Mitchell K. Redesigning the MCAT exam: balancing multiple perspectives. Acad Med. 2013;88(5):560-567.



Foundational Concept 1Biomolecules have unique properties that determine how they contribute to the structure and function of cells and how they participate in the processes necessary to sustain life.

Foundational Concept 2Highly organized assemblies of molecules, cells, and organs interact to carry out the function of living organisms.

Foundational Concept 3Complex systems of tissues and organs sense the internal and external environments of multicellular organisms, and through integrated functioning, maintain a stable internal environment within an ever-changing external environment.

Content Categories• Structure and functions of protein and their

constituent amino acids• Transmission of genetic information from

the gene to the protein• Transmission of heritable information from

generation to generation and the processes that increase genetic diversity

• Principles of bioenergetics and fuel molecule metabolism

Content Categories• Assemblies of molecules, cells, and groups of

cells within singular cellular and multicellular organisms

• The structure, growth, physiology, and genetics of prokaryotes and viruses

• Processes of cell division, differentiation, and specialization

Content Categories• Structure and functions of the nervous

and endocrine systems and ways in which the systems coordinate the organ systems

• Structure and integrative functions of the main organ systems

Questions in this section of the test ask examinees to combine their knowledge of the foundational concepts listed above with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills. Questions on this section might ask examinees to:• Recall the structural characteristics of two tissues and relate them to one another• Apply their understanding of Le Châtelier’s Principle to explain differences in deprotonation of organic acids when added to blood vs. pure water• Use knowledge of adaptive immune response to evaluate the acceptability of a treatment for use in a clinical context• Form a hypothesis about the effect of the pineal gland on thermogenesis based on the data from an experiment investigating the interaction

of temperature and pineal gland activity on body and organ weights for hamsters under different experimental conditions• Use data about wavelength and light absorption to determine the color perception of an individual with a given phenotype

32

Appendix A. Description of the Foundational Concepts, Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning Skills, and Information-Processing Skills Tested on the Four Sections of the MCAT Exam

Appendix A provides descriptions of the foundational concepts, content categories, and ways that examinees demonstrate their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills on the three sections of the MCAT exam that assess academic preparation in the natural, behavioral, and social sciences. It also describes the ways that examinees demonstrate their information-processing skills in the Critical Analysis and Reasoning section.


Medical school applicants must be prepared to learn about the biological and biochemical concepts that contribute to health and disease. When they enter medical school, they must be ready to learn how:

• The major biochemical, genetic, and molecular functions of the cell support health and lead to disease

• Cells grow and integrate to form tissues and organs that carry out essential biochemical and physiological functions

• The body responds to internal and external stimuli to support homeostasis and the ability to reproduce

The Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems section tests three foundational concepts and several reasoning skills that are building blocks for learning in medical school. This section asks examinees to solve problems by combining their knowledge of foundational concepts from biology, biochemistry, general chemistry, and organic chemistry with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills.

Figure A.1 lists the foundational concepts and the more specific content categories tested within each foundational concept. It also provides examples of the ways examinees are asked to combine their knowledge of foundational concepts with their scientific reasoning skills to answer test questions in this section.

Figure A.1. Foundational concepts, content categories, and scientific inquiry and reasoning skills tested on the Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems section.





Foundational Concept 4Complex living organisms transport materials, sense their environment, process signals, and respond to changes using processes that can be understood in terms of physical principles.

Foundational Concept 5The principles that govern chemical interactions and reactions form the basis for a broader understanding of the molecular dynamics of living systems.

Content Categories• Translational motion, forces, work, energy, and equilibrium in living

systems• Importance of fluids for the circulation of blood, gas movement, and

gas exchange• Electrochemistry and electrical circuits and their elements• How light and sound interact with matter• Atoms, nuclear decay, electronic structure,

and atomic chemical behavior

Content Categories• Unique nature of water and its solutions• Nature of molecules and intermolecular interactions• Separation and purification methods• Structure, function, and reactivity of biologically relevant molecules• Atoms, nuclear decay, electronic structure,

and atomic chemical behavior

Questions in this section of the test ask examinees to combine their knowledge of the foundational concepts listed above with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills. Questions on this section might ask examinees to:• Identify the relationship between the distribution of electric charges in the axon and the electric field lines they produce• Recognize the principles of flow characteristics of blood in the human body and apply the appropriate mathematical model to an unfamiliar

scenario• Change the experimental conditions of a test for proteins in a solution to prevent the formation of precipitates• Select between the standard and Doppler ultrasound techniques for a given context, considering the appropriateness, precision, and accuracy

of each technique• Use, analyze, and interpret data in a graph to determine the half-life of a radioactive substance used to measure cardiac function


Medical school applicants must be prepared to learn about the mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of human tissues, organs, and organ systems and how these contribute to health and disease. When they enter medical school, they must be ready to learn about:

• The physiological functions of the respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological systems in health and disease

• Molecular and cellular functions in health and disease

The Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems section tests two foundational concepts and several reasoning skills that are building blocks for learning in medical school. This section asks test takers to solve problems by combining their knowledge of foundational concepts from biology, biochemistry, physics, and general and organic chemistry with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills.

Figure A.2 lists the foundational concepts and content categories tested in this section. It also provides examples of the ways examinees are asked to combine their knowledge of foundational concepts with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills to answer test questions on the Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems section.

Figure A.2. Foundational concepts, content categories, and scientific inquiry and reasoning skills tested on the Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems section.




Foundational Concept 6 Biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors influence the ways that individuals perceive, think about, and react to the world.

Foundational Concept 7 Biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors influence behavior and behavior change.

Foundational Concept 8 Psychological, sociocultural, and biological factors influence the way we think about ourselves and others.

Foundational Concept 9 Cultural and social differences influencewell-being.

Foundational Concept 10 Social stratification and access to resources influence well-being.

Content Categories• Sensing the environment• Making sense of the

environment• Responding to the world

Content Categories• Individual influences

on behavior• Social processes that

influence human behavior• Attitude and

behavior change

Content Categories• Self-identity• Social thinking• Social interactions

Content Categories• Understanding

social structure• Demographic

characteristics and processes

Content Categories• Social inequity

Questions in this section of the test ask examinees to combine their knowledge of foundational concepts listed above with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills. Questions on this section might ask examinees to:• Draw conclusions about the type of memory affected by an experimental manipulation when shown a graph of findings from a memory experiment• Reason about whether a causal explanation is possible when given an example of how personality predicts individual behavior• Distinguish the kinds of claims that can be made when using longitudinal data, cross-sectional data, or experimental data in studies of social interaction• Identify the relationship between demographic variables and health variables reported in a table or figure• Identify the relationship between social institutions that is suggested by an illustration used in a public health campaign


Medical school applicants must be prepared to learn about the impact of behavioral and sociocultural factors on illness and health outcomes. When they enter medical school, they must be ready to learn how:

• Cognitive and perceptual processes influence the understanding of health and illness

• Behavior can either support health or increase risk for disease

• Perception, attitudes, and beliefs influence interactions with patients and other members of the health care team

• Patients’ social and demographic backgrounds influence their perceptions of health and disease, the health care team, and therapeutic interventions

• Social and economic factors can affect access to care and the probability of maintaining health and recovering from disease

The Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section tests five foundational concepts and several reasoning skills in the behavioral and social sciences that are building blocks for learning in medical school. This section tests the foundational concepts in psychology, sociology, and biology that tomorrow’s doctors need to serve an increasingly diverse population and have a clear understanding of the impact of behavior and sociocultural differences on health. Like the natural sciences sections, this section asks test takers to solve problems by combining their knowledge of foundational concepts with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills. It does not measure applicants’ interpersonal skills, the way they will behave, or their attitudes and beliefs about social issues.

Figure A.3 lists the foundational concepts tested in this section. It also provides examples of the ways examinees are asked to combine their knowledge of foundational concepts with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills to answer test questions on the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section.

Figure A.3. Foundational concepts, content categories, and scientific inquiry and reasoning skills tested on the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section.




The structure of the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section is different from the structure of the other sections of the exam. It asks applicants to process information, solve problems, and draw conclusions from information that is presented in passages. Medical students are required to comprehend and analyze a great deal of information in different contexts, and this section has been developed specifically to assess the information-processing skills an applicant will need to be successful in medical school.

The Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section tests how well applicants comprehend, analyze, and evaluate what they read; draw inferences from text; and apply arguments to new ideas and situations. It tests examinees’ ability to process information by having them read passages from a diverse set of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. These passages are excerpted from the kinds of books, journals, and magazines that college students are likely to read.

All passages in this section of the MCAT exam consist of multiple paragraphs and require thoughtful reading. Students must grasp the meaning of each paragraph and also identify the relationships across paragraphs. Additionally, students need to attend to the authors’ stated and unstated assumptions and to the rhetorical choices they have made to develop stance, voice, and style. Some passages require an understanding of the authors’ interpretations, implications, or applications of historical accounts, theories, observations, or societal trends.

The questions that follow the passages require their own focused kinds of reading, analyzing, and reasoning because many ask students to think about the passages from different perspectives or to question the authors’ statements, judge the relevance of the authors’ examples, or consider crucial facts that might challenge the authors’ assertions or analysis. It is important to keep in mind that the questions on this section do not rely on specific background knowledge in the humanities and social sciences. Students get all the information they need to answer the questions in the accompanying passages or in the questions themselves.

The Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section assesses three broad critical analysis and reasoning skills: Foundations of Comprehension, Reasoning Within the Text, and Reasoning Beyond the Text. The major elements of each skill are described below.

Figure A.4. Analysis and reasoning skills tested on the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section.


Foundations of Comprehension

Questions measuring Foundations of Comprehension ask examinees to demonstrate their information-processing skills by:

• Understanding the basic components of the text, such as the main idea of the passage, the conclusions drawn by the author, and the intended meaning of specific words or phrases.

• Inferring meaning from rhetorical devices, word choice, and text structure, such as the use of loaded adjectives that reveal whether an author is objectively conveying factual information or a bias about an issue, the use of point-counterpoint to describe two perspectives on an issue, or the use of sarcasm or symbolism that signals that words should not be taken literally.

Reasoning Within the Text

Questions measuring Reasoning Within the Text ask examinees to demonstrate their information-processing skills by:

• Integrating different components of the text to increase comprehension or analysis, such as identifying sections of a passage that support an author’s position, identifying assumptions that underlie a position taken, distinguishing between opinion and fact, or judging the veracity of an argument.

Reasoning Beyond the Text

Questions measuring Reasoning Beyond the Text ask examinees to demonstrate their information-processing skills by:

• Applying or extrapolating ideas from the passage to new contexts, situations, possibilities, alternatives, options, or proposals, such as identifying a new scenario that is consistent with an author’s point of view or a relationship described in the passage.

• Assessing the impact of introducing new factors, information, or conditions to ideas from the passage to evaluate students’ understanding that inferences and conclusions may change in the face of new information.


Appendix B. MCAT Total and Section Score Percentile Ranks in Effect May 1, 2017–April 30, 2018

Total Percentile Total Percentile Total PercentileScore Rank Score Rank Score Rank 472 <1 491 22 510 82473 <1 492 24 511 85474 <1 493 27 512 87475 <1 494 30 513 89476 1 495 33 514 91477 1 496 37 515 93478 2 497 40 516 94479 2 498 43 517 95480 3 499 47 518 97481 4 500 50 519 97482 5 501 54 520 98483 6 502 57 521 99484 7 503 61 522 99485 9 504 64 523 100486 11 505 67 524 100487 12 506 71 525 100488 15 507 74 526 100489 17 508 77 527 100490 19 509 80 528 100

MCAT Total (N = 150,893)

Notes: The column labeled “Percentile Rank” provides the percentage of scores equal to or less than each score point. These percentile ranks are based on all MCAT results from the 2015 and 2016 testing years combined. For example, 77% of MCAT total scores were equal to or less than 508 across all exams administered in 2015 and 2016 combined.

Updates to the percentile ranks will be made on May 1st each year. Beginning in 2018, the percentile ranks will be updated with all exam results from the most recent three years.

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Percent

Total Score

Mean = 500.2Std. Deviation = 10.5

TotalPercentileTotalPercentileTotalPercentileScoreRank ScoreRank ScoreRank 472<14912251082473<14922451185474<14932751287475<1494305138947614953351491477149637515934782497405169447924984351795480349947518974814500505199748255015452098483650257521994847503615229948595046452310048611505675241004871250671525100488155077452610048917508775271004901950980528100

MCAT Total (N = 150,893)

Notes:The column labeled “Percentile Rank” provides the percentage of scores equal to or less than each score point. These percentile ranks are based on all MCAT results fromthe 2015 and 2016 testing years combined.For example, 77% of MCAT total scores were equal to or less than 508 across all exams administered in 2015and 2016 combined.

Updates tothe percentile ranks will be made on May 1st each year. Beginning in 2018, the percentile ranks will be updated with all exam results from the mostrecentthree years.

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Percent

Total Score

Mean= 500.2Std. Deviation = 10.5



Appendix B (continued)


Association of American Medical Colleges - AAMC is a publication of the Association of American...

Documents

Transcript of Association of American Medical Colleges - AAMC is a publication of the Association of American...