A comparison of the United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UK-CAT) with a traditional admission selection process

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UK-CAT) was introduced for the purpose of student selection by a consortium of 23 UK University Medical and Dental Schools, including the University of Aberdeen in 2006. AIM: To compare candidate performance on UK-CAT with local medical student selection outcome. METHOD: We compared the outcomes of all applicants to Medicine, University of Aberdeen (UoA), in 2006 who undertook the UK-CAT. The candidates were selected into one of five outcomes (academic reject, reject following assessment, reject following interview, reserve list or offer). The candidate performance in the UK-CAT was compared to candidate performance on the UoA selection. RESULTS: Data are reported on 1307 (85.0%) students who applied to UoA in 2006 and undertook the UK-CAT. Total UK-CAT scores were significantly correlated with local selection scores. However, of 314 students offered a place following the conventional selection process, only 101 were also in the highest scoring 318 on the UK-CAT. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study indicate that UK-CAT scores show weak correlation with success in our medical admissions process. It appears therefore that the UK-CAT examines different traits compared to our selection process. Further work is required to establish which better predicts success as an undergraduate or as a doctor.