Within aptitude test subtests, verbal reasoning (d=0.704) and quantitative reasoning (d=0.643) best predict early program academic results, while abstract and verbal reasoning predict end-of-program outcomes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2027: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Verbal reasoning (0.704) and quantitative reasoning (0.643) had the largest subtest effect sizes for early program academic results. → Huang Pin-Hsiang 2024 q3 i1 Abstract reasoning (0.211) and verbal reasoning (0.305) predicted end of program academic results, and abstract (0.221) and verbal (0.298) reasoning predicted end of program clinical exams. → Huang Pin-Hsiang 2024

Evidence¶

Huang Pin-Hsiang 2024¶

Huang Pin-Hsiang, Arianpoor Arash, Taylor Silas, Gonzales Jenzel, Shulruf Boaz. (2024). Insights into undergraduate medical student selection tools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.22

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects meta-analysis of aptitude test subtest domains against program outcomes, with printed pooled values d = 0.704 (verbal reasoning), d = 0.643 (quantitative reasoning), and d = 0.276 (interpersonal reasoning) for early program academic results. End-of-program effects were smaller: "abstract reasoning and verbal reasoning had effect sizes of 0.211 ... and 0.305 ... respectively for end of program academic results".

"Moreover, verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, and interpersonal reasoning had effect sizes of 0.704 (95% CI, 0.471 to 0.938), 0.643 (95% CI, 0.328 to 0.958), and 0.276 (95% CI, 0.056 to 0.496), respectively for early program academic results."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• General Cognitive Ability — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Overall aptitude tests predict early program academic results (d=0.550), end of program academic results (d=0.371), and end of program clinical exams (d=0.448), but not early program clinical exams — a broader claim this one bears on
• Situational judgement tests show a statistically significant but negligible-magnitude effect on early program academic results (d=0.170), while personality test evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis — related