Demographic disparities in dental school selection: An analysis of current UK practices.

INTRODUCTION: Specific social groups remain under-represented within dentistry. While the University Clinical Aptitude Test (UCAT) aims to widen participation in under-represented social groups, there is no evidence in dental education that this aim is being met. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data over two admission cycles (2012 and 2013), including 3246 applicants to 10 UK dental schools, were analysed. Applicant and selected pools were compared to the UK population. Multiple logistic regression was used to investigate the association between demographic variables and UCAT and receiving an offer of a place at dental school. RESULTS: Over-representation of Female, Asian, least deprived and grammar school groups were found in applicant and selected pools compared with the UK population. White ethnic applicants were significantly more selected than Black (OR 0.25), Asian (OR 0.57) and Mixed (OR 0.80) ethnicities, while least deprived applicants were significantly more selected than most deprived (OR 0.59). Grammar school education increased odds of selection by 1.8 when compared to state school. The addition of UCAT to the model for applicants reduced ethnic disparities but led to disparities between other groups. CONCLUSION: Current widening participation practices focus on attracting applicants from lower socio-economic groups. However, this study showed that ethnicity, sex and educational background biases also affect demographic diversity in dentistry. The UCAT shows promise in levelling the playing field; however, widening access measures will only succeed if selection committees radically change selection processes to address the systemic biases, enabling the dentists of tomorrow to represent the society they serve.

UCAT and dental student selection in the UK - what has changed?

Introduction The University Clinical Aptitude Test (UCAT) has been used since 2006 by a consortium of UK medical and dental schools to assist in undergraduate selection. In 2019, UCAT was used by 30 universities (14 dental schools).Aim To report how UCAT use has changed in undergraduate student selection in the UK.Methods UCAT use was categorised and trends identified from annual telephone interviews with dental school admission tutors; this process started in 2011.Results Dental schools using UCAT rose from 8 (2006) to 14 (2020). The most significant use of the test to select applicants for interview was as a weighted factor; at offer stage, UCAT was most used to discriminate between applicants at borderlines. A growing number of dental schools are using the Situational Judgement Test (SJT) in selection (2019, n = 6). In 2019, eight schools adjusted selection processes for widening access applicants. Multiple mini interviews are now used by the majority (n = 10) of dental schools.Conclusions UCAT represents a significant factor in selection to UK undergraduate dental programmes and is used by all but two dental schools. In most schools, UCAT contributes in a substantial way to selection outcomes and strength in test use has grown over time.

Does the UKCAT predict performance in medical and dental school? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: For the first time, this systematic review provides a summary of the literature exploring the relationship between performance in the UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) and assessments in undergraduate medical and dental training. DESIGN: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, relevant studies were identified through systematic literature searches. Electronic searches were carried out on EBSCO, EMBASE, Educational Resources Information Centre, SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge. Studies which included the predictive validity of selection criteria including some element of the UKCAT were considered. RESULTS: 22 papers were identified for inclusion in the study. Four studies describe outcomes from dental programmes with limited results reported. 18 studies reported on relationships between the UKCAT and performance in undergraduate medical training. Of these, 15 studies reported relationships between the UKCAT cognitive tests and undergraduate medical assessments. Weak relationships (r=0.00-0.29) were observed in 14 of these studies; four studies reported some moderate relationships (r=0.30-0.49). The strongest relationships with performance in medical school were observed for the UKCAT total score and the verbal reasoning subtest. Relationships with knowledge-based assessments scores were higher than those for assessments of skills as the outcome. Relationships observed in small (single and double centre studies) were larger than those observed in multicentre studies. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that UKCAT scores predict performance in medical school assessments. The relationship is generally weak, although noticeably stronger for both the UKCAT total score and the verbal reasoning subtest. There is some evidence that UKCAT continues to predict performance throughout medical school. We recommend more optimal approaches to future studies. This assessment of existing evidence should assist medical/dental schools in their evaluation of selection processes.

UKCAT and medical student selection in the UK - what has changed since 2006?

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) is an aptitude test used since 2006 within selection processes of a consortium of UK medical and dental schools. Since 2006, student numbers have increased in medical training and schools now have an increased focus on widening access. A growing evidence base has emerged around medical student selection (Patterson et al., Med Educ 50:36-60, 2016) leading to changes in practice. However, whilst some papers describe local selection processes, there has been no overview of trends in selection processes over time across Universities. This study reports on how the use of the UKCAT in medical student selection has changed and comments on other changes in selection processes. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted annually with UKCAT Consortium medical schools. Use of the UKCAT was categorised and data analysed to identify trends over time. RESULTS: The number of schools using the UKCAT to select applicants for interview has risen, with cognitive test results contributing significantly to outcomes at this stage at many universities. Where schools use different weighted criteria (Factor Method), the UKCAT has largely replaced the use of personal statements. Use of the test at offer stage has also increased; the most significant use being to discriminate between applicants at a decision borderline. A growing number of schools are using the UKCAT Situational Judgement Test (SJT) in selection. In 2018, all but seven (out of 26) schools made some adjustment to selection processes for widening access applicants. Multiple Mini Interviews (MMIs) are now used by the majority of schools. Whilst medical student numbers have increased over this time, the ratio of applicants to places has fallen. The probability of applicants being invited to interview or receiving an offer has increased. CONCLUSIONS: More medical schools are using the UKCAT in undergraduate selection processes in an increasing number of ways and with increasing weight compared with 2007. It has replaced the use of personal statements in all but a few Consortium medical schools. An increased focus on academic attainment and the UKCAT across medical schools may be leading to the need for schools to interview and make offers to more applicants.

Do changing medical admissions practices in the UK impact on who is admitted? An interrupted time series analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Medical admissions must balance two potentially competing missions: to select those who will be successful medical students and clinicians and to increase the diversity of the medical school population and workforce. Many countries address this dilemma by reducing the heavy reliance on prior educational attainment, complementing this with other selection tools. However, evidence to what extent this shift in practice has actually widened access is conflicting. AIM: To examine if changes in medical school selection processes significantly impact on the composition of the student population. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study of medical students from 18 UK 5-year medical programmes who took the UK Clinical Aptitude Test from 2007 to 2014; detailed analysis on four schools. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Proportion of admissions to medical school for four target groups (lower socioeconomic classes, non-selective schooling, non-white and male). DATA ANALYSIS: Interrupted time-series framework with segmented regression was used to identify the impact of changes in selection practices in relation to invitation to interview to medical school. Four case study medical schools were used looking at admissions within for the four target groups. RESULTS: There were no obvious changes in the overall proportion of admissions from each target group over the 8-year period, averaging at 3.3% lower socioeconomic group, 51.5% non-selective school, 30.5% non-white and 43.8% male. Each case study school changed their selection practice in decision making for invite to interview during 2007-2014. Yet, this within-school variation made little difference locally, and changes in admission practices did not lead to any discernible change in the demography of those accepted into medical school. CONCLUSION: Although our case schools changed their selection procedures, these changes did not lead to any observable differences in their student populations. Increasing the diversity of medical students, and hence the medical profession, may require different, perhaps more radical, approaches to selection.

Are efforts to attract graduate applicants to UK medical schools effective in increasing the participation of under-represented socioeconomic groups? A national cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Attracting graduates was recommended as a means of diversifying the UK medical student population. Graduates now make up nearly a quarter of the total medical student population. Research to date has focused on comparing the sociodemographic characteristics of applicants to and/or students on traditional and graduate entry programmes (GEMs), yet GEMs account for only 40% of the graduate medical student population. Thus, we aimed to compare the sociodemographic characteristic and outcomes of graduates and non-graduate applicants across a range of programmes. METHODS: This was an observational study of 117 214 applicants to medicine who took the UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) from 2006 to 2014 and who applied to medical school through Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). We included applicant demographics, UKCAT total score and offers in our analysis. Applicants were assigned as graduates or non-graduates on the basis of their highest qualification. Multiple logistic regression was used to predict the odds of receiving an offer, after adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Irrespective of graduate or non-graduate status, most applicants were from the highest socioeconomic groups and were from a white ethnic background. Receiving an offer was related to gender and ethnicity in both graduates and non-graduates. After adjusting for UKCAT score, the OR of an offer for graduates versus non-graduates was approximately 0.5 (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.49). DISCUSSION: Our findings indicate that the aim of diversifying the medical student population on socioeconomic grounds by attracting graduates has been only marginally successful. Graduate applicants from widening access backgrounds are less likely than others to be offered a place at medical school. Different approaches must be considered if medicine is to attract and select more socially diverse applicants.

The relationship between school type and academic performance at medical school: a national, multi-cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Differential attainment in school examinations is one of the barriers to increasing student diversity in medicine. However, studies on the predictive validity of prior academic achievement and educational performance at medical school are contradictory, possibly due to single-site studies or studies which focus only on early years' performance. To address these gaps, we examined the relationship between sociodemographic factors, including school type and average educational performance throughout medical school across a large number of diverse medical programmes. METHODS: This retrospective study analysed data from students who graduated from 33 UK medical schools between 2012 and 2013. We included candidates' demographics, pre-entry grades (adjusted Universities and Colleges Admissions Service tariff scores) preadmission test scores (UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) and Graduate Medical School Admissions Test (GAMSAT)) and used the UK Foundation Programme's educational performance measure (EPM) decile as an outcome measure. Logistic regression was used to assess the independent relationship between students' background characteristics and EPM ranking. RESULTS: Students from independent schools had significantly higher mean UKCAT scores (2535.1, SD=209.6) than students from state-funded schools (2506.1, SD=224.0, p<0.001). Similarly, students from independent schools came into medical school with significantly higher mean GAMSAT scores (63.9, SD=6.9) than students from state-funded schools (60.8, SD=7.1, p<0.001). However, students from state-funded schools were almost twice as likely (OR=2.01, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.73) to finish in the highest rank of the EPM ranking than those who attended independent schools. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large-scale study to examine directly the relationship between school type and overall performance at medical school. Our findings provide modest supportive evidence that, when students from independent and state schools enter with similar pre-entry grades, once in medical school, students from state-funded schools are likely to outperform students from independent schools. This evidence contributes to discussions around contextualising medical admission.

Use of UKCAT scores in student selection by U.K. medical schools, 2006-2010.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) is a set of cognitive tests introduced in 2006, taken annually before application to medical school. The UKCAT is a test of aptitude and not acquired knowledge and as such the results give medical schools a standardised and objective tool that all schools could use to assist their decision making in selection, and so provide a fairer means of choosing future medical students.Selection of students for U.K. medical schools is usually in three stages: assessment of academic qualifications, assessment of further qualities from the application form submitted via UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) leading to invitation to interview, and then selection for offer of a place. Medical schools were informed of the psychometric qualities of the UKCAT subtests and given some guidance regarding the interpretation of results. Each school then decided how to use the results within its own selection system. METHODS: Annual retrospective key informant telephone interviews were conducted with every UKCAT Consortium medical school, using a pre-circulated structured questionnaire. The key points of the interview were transcribed, 'member checked' and a content analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Four equally popular ways of using the test results have emerged, described as Borderline, Factor, Threshold and Rescue methods. Many schools use more than one method, at different stages in their selection process. Schools have used the scores in ways that have sought to improve the fairness of selection and support widening participation. Initially great care was taken not to exclude any applicant on the basis of low UKCAT scores alone but it has been used more as confidence has grown. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in how medical schools use UKCAT, so it is important that they clearly inform applicants how the test will be used so they can make best use of their limited number of applications.