No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Impact of Testing Accommodations on MCAT Scores: Descriptive Results
Abstract
Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) examinees with disabilities who receive accommodations receive flagged scores indicating nonstandard administration. This report compares MCAT examinees who received accommodations and their performances with standard examinees.
Aggregate history records of all 1994-2000 MCAT examinees were identified as flagged (2,401) or standard (297,880), then further sorted by race/ethnicity (broadly identified as underrepresented minority and non-URM, at the time of testing) and gender. Those with flagged scores were also classified by disability (LD = learning disability, ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, LD/ADHD = learning disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and Other = other disability) and type of accommodation. Mean MCAT scores were calculated for all groups. A group of 866 examinees took the MCAT first as a standard administration and subsequently with accommodations. In a separate analysis, their two sets of scores were compared.
Less than 1% of examinees (2,401) had accommodations; of these, 55% were LD, 17% ADHD, 5% LD/ADHD, and 23% Other. Extended time was the most frequently provided accommodation. Mean flagged scores slightly exceeded mean standard scores on all MCAT sections. Examinees who retook the MCAT with accommodations after a standard administration increased their scores by six points, quadrupling the average gain Standard-Standard retest cohort from another study.
The small but statistically significant different higher flagged scores may reflect either appropriate compensation or overly generous accommodations. Extended time had a positive impact on the scores of those who retested with this accommodation. The validity the flagged MCAT in predicting success in medical school is not known, and further investigation is underway.
... Modifications to students' method of testing (e.g., no essay exams, access to notes during testing) or grading (e.g., no points taken off for grammatical errors) can cause problems when evaluating students' knowledge and skills. Students who receive additional time on exams, regardless of their disability status, tend to outperform students who complete tests under standard conditions (Julian, Ingersoll, Etienne, & Hilger, 2004;Lewandowski, Cohen, & Lovett, 2013). The indiscriminate provision of accommodations, therefore, can waste university resources, erode academic standards, and provide certain students with an academic advantage over their peers. ...
Students with disabilities face many challenges in their pursuit of higher education. Academic accommodations and other educational supports can allow these students to learn, and to demonstrate their learning, in a manner similar to their classmates without disabilities. The purpose of this study was (1) to determine the percent of students classified with disabilities and receiving accommodations in college and (2) to see if students’ access to accommodations varies as a function of their college’s type, selectivity, and cost. Overall 4.6% of undergraduate students are formally registered with their school’s disability office. Contrary to expectations, the highest percentage of students with disabilities receiving accommodations are found in America’s most selective and expensive private colleges and universities. The prevalence of students with disabilities at private, liberal arts colleges in particular is almost three times higher than the prevalence at two-year public (i.e., community) colleges. These findings suggest that public colleges should be more proactive in identifying and accommodating students with disabilities and private colleges should be more judicious in their accommodation granting. Colleges should also use principles of universal design to promote the academic success of all students, regardless of their disability status.
... This interference of neurodevelopmental disorders on success in educational settings suggests that the base rates for these disorders should gradually decline with higher levels of education. However, the base rate of certain neurodevelopmental disorders is notably higher among individuals preparing for high-stake examinations compared to the general population (Julian et al., 2004). This provides indirect evidence that a proportion of the diagnosed that serve as the basis of academic accommodation during high-stake exams is likely based on noncredible presentation. ...
The article reviews systemic and context-specific challenges of psychoeducational assessment using two case studies: a 19-year-old woman with feigned attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder and a 50-year-old man with genuine dyslexia. These cases demonstrate that providing a thorough evaluation of performance validity is an essential component of determining eligibility for academic accommodations in both clinical and higher education settings. At the same time, discounting failure on certain performance validity tests may be necessary to protect against false positive errors. In addition , empirically based test selection and interpretation has the potential to enhance the clinical confidence during differential diagnosis. Examining the internal consistency of a given neurocognitive profile provides valuable clinical information to determine both the credibility of the overall presentation and applying established diagnostic criteria. Although clinical research has yet to identify definitive markers of non-credible neurocognitive profiles, a multivariate approach to performance validity assessment that combines empirically validated indicators and sound clinical judgment can improve detection rates while simultaneously protecting against false positive errors.
... Extra administration time (extra time) is a common accommodation for a variety of mental and physical disabilities [9][10][11][12][13] and is the most frequently provided accommodation on the MCAT. 14 This study investigated the comparability of MCAT scores in relation to medical school admission and medical student performance for individuals who had scores obtained with standard vs extra time. ...
Individuals with documented disabilities may receive accommodations on the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Whether such accommodations are associated with MCAT scores, medical school admission, and medical school performance is unclear.
To determine the comparability of MCAT scores obtained with standard vs extra administration time with respect to likelihood of acceptance to medical school and future medical student performance.
Retrospective cohort study of applicants to US medical schools for the 2011-2013 entering classes who reported MCAT scores obtained with standard time (n = 133 962) vs extra time (n = 435), and of students who matriculated in US medical schools from 2000-2004 who reported MCAT scores obtained with standard time (n = 76 262) vs extra time (n = 449).
Standard or extra administration time during MCAT.
Primary outcome measures were acceptance rates at US medical schools and graduation rates within 4 or 5 years after matriculation. Secondary outcome measures were pass rates on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step examinations and graduation rates within 6 to 8 years after matriculation.
Acceptance rates were not significantly different for applicants who had MCAT scores obtained with standard vs extra time (44.5% [59 585/133 962] vs 43.9% [191/435]; difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -4.1 to 5.3]). Students who tested with extra time passed the Step examinations on first attempt at significantly lower rates (Step 1, 82.1% [344/419] vs 94.0% [70 188/74 668]; difference, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.6% to 14.2%]; Step 2 CK, 85.5% [349/408] vs 95.4% [70 476/73 866]; difference, 9.9% [95% CI, 7.8% to 11.9%]; Step 2 CS, 92.0% [288/313] vs 97.0% [60 039/61 882]; difference, 5.0% [95% CI, 3.1% to 6.9%]). They also graduated from medical school at significantly lower rates at different times (4 years, 67.2% [285/424] vs 86.1% [60 547/70 305]; difference, 18.9% [95% CI, 15.6% to 22.2%]; 5 years, 81.6% [346/424] vs 94.4% [66 369/70 305]; difference, 12.8% [95% CI, 10.6% to 15.0%]; 6 years, 85.4% [362/424] vs 95.8% [67 351/70 305]; difference, 10.4% [95% CI, 8.5% to 12.4%]; 7 years, 88.0% [373/424] vs 96.2% [67 639/70 305]; difference, 8.2% [95% CI, 6.4% to 10.1%]; 8 years, 88.4% [375/424] vs 96.5% [67 847/70 305]; difference, 8.1% [95% CI, 6.3% to 9.8%]). These differences remained after controlling for MCAT scores and undergraduate grade point averages.
Among applicants to US medical schools, those with MCAT scores obtained with extra test administration time, compared with standard administration time, had no significant difference in rate of medical school admission but had lower rates of passing the USMLE Step examinations and of medical school graduation within 4 to 8 years after matriculation. These findings raise questions about the types of learning environments and support systems needed by students who test with extra time on the MCAT to enable them to succeed in medical school.
... The present study's findings that provisions have a positive impact on the examination scores are in line with other studies reported from USA which have also stated that college students with SpLD score better marks when given extra time to complete their written examinations and when they avail appropriate optional subjects to circumvent their disability. [17][18][19] What is the utility of the present study? First, the results of the present study will encourage children with SpLD to avail the necessary provisions and thus continue their education in regular mainstream schools. ...
To assess the impact of the provisions of the Maharashtra government on the academic performance of children with specific learning disability (SpLD) at the Secondary School Certificate (SSC) board examination.
The academic performance of 60 children (45 boys, 15 girls) at the SSC board examination with benefit of chosen provisions was compared with their performance at their last annual school examination before diagnosis of SpLD.
There was a significant improvement in their mean percentage (%) total marks scored at the SSC board examination as compared with the mean % total marks scored by them at their last annual school examination before the diagnosis (63.48 +/- 7.86 vs. 40.95 +/- 7.23) [mean +/- SD, mean % difference = 22.53, 95% CI = 19.8 - 25.26, P.
Children with SpLD who availed the benefit of provisions showed a significant improvement in their academic performance at the SSC board examination.
This chapter explores how the admission process serves as a biased competence test of higher education. When designed around incomplete or inaccurate understandings of the human brain, it serves as a barrier to access to higher education either accidentally or purposefully discriminatory. A review of the implications of standard application and admissions processes highlights how admission processes shape not only an individual campus’s environment but access to higher education nationally.
Davidson and Lewis1 report on 20 years of experience with a special admission program at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine (UC Davis). This school, like the other allopathic medical schools and osteopathic medical colleges in the United States, is blessed with a surfeit of applicants: UC Davis had 5162 formal applicants in 1997, from which it obtained 93 newly entering students (H. Jonas, oral communication, September 1997). The task of the medical admissions committee is to select those best qualified from the larger number of qualified applicants.See also p 1153.The easy way to select medical students is to compare numerical data such as preapplication test scores on standardized examinations and grade point averages (GPAs). These factors are predictive of future performance in like examinations and similar course work, but they may contribute only moderately to answering the question of which applicants are best qualified.
The provision of testing accommodations for examinees with disabling conditions has become an important topic in recent years. This review presents a summary of the relevant issues. The first section traces the history of legislation related to the testing of individuals with disabilities and presents a brief summary of guidelines issued by relevant testing organizations. The second section provides a description of disabilities typically accommodated in large-scale examinations and highlights the ever-increasing role of learning disabilities in testing practice. Summaries of legal cases concerning testing accommodations are then presented. Next, psychometric issues are described, and results and ideas for future research are presented. The review also examines the emerging role of learning disabilities in the area of testing accommodations and addresses the intensely debated social policy questions related to equity and fairness in educational assessment.
This paper addresses the predictive value for performance in medical school of undergraduate grades, the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT), information on the selectivity of the undergraduate institution, and selected transcript data. The performance data examined were basic science grades; clinical science grades; scores on National Board of Medical Examiners examinations, Parts I, II, and III; and information on academic difficulty. Methodological sources of differences in validity data, including restriction in range, criterion attenuation, and method specificity, are discussed. Reported validity data affirm the substantial value of traditional academic predictors of performance in medical school. Selection committees should, nevertheless, supplement academic data with nonacademic and interview information. Their inclusion is particularly important for minority and disadvantaged applicants. Medical schools should assess the validity of their selection systems. Additional research on the relations between academic predictors and performance-based indexes of clinical competence and on the role of traditional predictors with regard to the recently declining medical school applicant pool is suggested.
No abstract available. (C) 1996 Association of American Medical Colleges
No abstract available. (C) 1996 Association of American Medical Colleges
The authors use the interface of learning disabilities (LDs) and medical education to explore several issues relevant to medical professionalism and the training of future physicians. First, they examine arguments given by Little (in the preceding article) that a successful suit for accommodations on a state bar exam is generalizable to LDs and medical education, and suggest ways in which this may not be true. They then explore two frameworks for understanding medical education: (1) as a process of academic achievement linked to degree attainment, and (2) as a process of professional acculturation linked to competencies. Within this dichotomy, they then explore (1) the legitimacy accorded to different types of accommodations, (2) differing meanings of a "level playing field," and (3) the legal standard of "otherwise able." They also examine the use of intermediaries (e.g., a reader) as a "leveling" strategy and how, in clinical settings, this might violate core standards of autonomous decision making. The authors investigate the nature of "technical standards" in training across medicine and nursing and find a number of differences, particularly in the intent and levels of detail of standards. Across these two domains, they observe a status hierarchy, medical hubris, and the emergence of a "right to fail" as one travels down that hierarchy. The authors also examine medicine as an undifferentiated degree and consider arguments that medical school course requirements should be unbundled. They close by insisting that medical schools have a social responsibility to shift their pedagogic gaze from identifying handicaps in individuals to understanding how the education of physicians can become, quite literally, "handicapping."