This might be because of the browser you are using. Please clear your cache and do not use Internet Explorer. When do you deliver my results to the universities? You do not need to forward your results to your chosen universities, we take care of this. Due to the number of candidates sitting our tests each year we cannot check or confirm that individual results have been sent.
How do I know my ranking? In late August we publish the test statistics. A useful 'Percentile Look Up' facility is added to the Test Statistics page of our website to allow you to see your ranking within the current year's cohort of test takers.
Can you tell me about the universities' selection criteria? We cannot provide information about selection criteria or cut-off scores. Each university has different selection criteria and admission procedures, which can vary from year to year. Our Consortium universities will provide information on their websites. Once this information is published, you should contact the universities concerned if you require further information. Please refer to the information at the Results page.
Email responses are provided Monday - Friday. This includes the late fee, if applicable. It is important to read the information at this page carefully to ensure your test day runs smoothly. You should arrive approximately 30 minutes before your appointment time to complete the check-in process. If you arrive more than 15 mi If you are intending to apply to universities in the UK or one of our Associate Member universities then you need to be on our UK site.
Home FAQs. Registration and Booking How do I register for the test? Concession Scheme My concession application has not been approved but I think I should be eligible, what should I do?
Preparation Materials Are there any practice questions or preparation materials available? Rescheduling and Cancelling How do I reschedule my test? Complaints How do I make a complaint about my test? Results When will I receive my results?
The UCAT focuses on exploring your cognitive powers, as well as other attributes considered valuable for healthcare professionals. Any applicant who has not taken the UCAT will not have their application considered further by the Faculty of Medicine.
The UCAT results are only valid for applications to universities in the year in which the test is taken. If your application to medical school is not successful and you re-apply the following year, you will be required to re-sit the UCAT. If you achieve a low UCAT score, it can feel like the world is ending and all hope of getting into medicine is destroyed. However, with determination, hard work, organisation, and knowledge of the various pathways into medicine outlined in this blog , getting into medicine is certainly possible!
If you achieve a low UCAT score, there are many options available to you:. It is a test which is quite different to UCAT. Below is a list of BMAT requiring universities:.
Applying to these universities is a good option if your UCAT score is not what you hoped it to be. Therefore, they often require higher academic scores for admission and are, for the most part, more competitive. They involve completing a year-long course before your first year of medical school.
They allow you to gain skills, learn basic science and develop yourself as a person. Note that to apply to these courses you often have to reside within the local area of the specific medical school to which you are applying.
These courses often still require you to sit UCAT, but the cut off scores required are generally lower. There are also some stand-alone Foundation Courses available. These courses run like the above but do not guarantee entry into medicine on completion. Wright and Bradley 6 comment on the limitations of restricted range in their work but preferred to report the more conservative approach given the recognised limitations of adjusting. It has however been argued that corrected correlations are less biased than those reported without correction.
UKCAT should encourage stakeholders to continue to undertake predictive validity studies in order to further inform the development of the test and selection processes more generally. The creation of the UKMED will facilitate researchers undertaking full cohort studies across an entire or multiple medical student intake s with a consistent range of demographic, academic achievement and progression markers.
At the same time, however, more local studies able to investigate the ability to predict individual assessment outcomes will continue to have utility.
Consider performance in the middle years of medical school as fewer studies have looked at years 3 and 4. Undertake analysis of relevant subgroup differences eg, age, gender, international, widening access with regard to prediction of outcomes. Include analysis which adjusts for range restriction or at least comment explicitly on the limiting impact of not undertaking such analysis. UKMED opens up the opportunity to explore the extent to which all selection criteria including other aptitude tests predict performance in medical school and the interaction between such criteria.
Future studies will increasingly be able to investigate outcomes beyond medical school into postgraduate training and beyond. This will open up opportunities to investigate how factors used in selection predict career progression and choices. The work undertaken by Tiffin et al 23 in particular would lead naturally to further studies investigating the extent to which the UKCAT might compensate for lower A-level achievement and the impact this might have on opening up routes to widen access.
Verbal reasoning clearly plays a great part in the relationships observed. If as McManus suggests this subtest also correlates least with prior attainment A-levels and equivalent then there is a case to be made for this subtest having a higher weighting or at least being treated differently in selection.
A radical approach along these lines would logically increase the ability of the test to predict assessment outcomes in the future. A particular challenge of longitudinal studies in selection is that during the time required to observe relevant output measures nothing else stands still.
This systematic review allows us to draw conclusions from studies over a significant time period. Even so, the UKCAT test itself has gone through significant change as have university curricula; the expansion in student numbers may also impact on applicant demographics and test performance. While we can assume that outcomes reported here might be generalisable to an extent, there is an ongoing need to undertake further studies to reassure future selectors and test takers that the UKCAT remains fit for purpose.
Variability between studies makes generalising across them challenging. Studies took place over a number of years and so year 1 in one school was not the same year 1 by calendar year in another.
Outcome markers varied in nature and number between schools. In order to provide greater interpretation of complex data, some results are presented as aggregated outcomes by year group and ought as such be treated with caution. This systematic review supports the use of the UKCAT in selection as the test predicts performance in medical school. However, the relationship is small and selectors ought not to use the test in isolation but alongside other selection criteria.
The UKCAT Consortium should reflect in particular findings regarding verbal reasoning which perhaps support consideration of this subtest separate to the total test score used most frequently by universities. Contributors: RG is the guarantor. RG undertook the systematic review, identified articles for inclusion, analysed the data, drafted and finalised the manuscript.
SN advised on methodology, reviewed and approved outcomes from the systematic review, advised on presentation of results and contributed to drafting of the manuscript. SA undertook an independent secondary review of the search for articles, advised on methodology, advised on presentation of results and contributed to drafting of the manuscript.
Patient consent for publication: Not required. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. BMJ Open. Published online Jan Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer.
Corresponding author. Correspondence to Ms Rachel Greatrix; ku. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Associated Data Supplementary Materials Reviewer comments. Abstract 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. Results 22 papers were identified for inclusion in the study. Strengths and limitations of this study. Open in a separate window. Figure 1. Figure 2. Data extraction Data were extracted by RG into a table and included article title, year of publication, sample size, number of universities included in the study, programme medicine or dentistry and year of admission.
Patient and public involvement Patients were not involved in this study. Results Twenty-two papers were identified for inclusion in the study; 18 published articles and four articles sourced from the grey literature.
Outcome measures Outcome variables extracted from these studies were year of assessment, assessment outcome measure eg, objective structured clinical examination OSCE , Final Exam and a coded proxy of the exam type skills, knowledge or mixed assessments. Figure 3. Figure 4.
Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Regression analyses Table 4 summarises outcomes from regression analyses reported in some of the studies. Table 4 Regression analyses. Sartania et al 25 UKCAT total score was independently associated with course performance before and after adjustment for gender, age, ethnicity and deprivation. UKCAT scores predict knowledge outcomes although in most cases, effects reduce on adjustment for the effect of advanced qualifications.
Tiffin and Paton 24 SJT scores remained significant predictors of theory performance even after adjustment of cognitive ability.
Quantitative Reasoning predicts outcomes in one theme and Verbal Reasoning in two themes. Predicting other progression outcomes Tiffin and Paton 24 analysed the odds of students passing at first sitting compared with other academic outcomes such as fail or resit. Discussion Overview This study for the first time synthesises outcomes from articles reporting on the predictive validity of the UKCAT.
Main findings Verbal reasoning scores appear to predict rather more as a stand-alone subtest than the other subtests. Limitations in identified studies Outcome markers Authors comment on the limitations in predictive validity studies created by a lack of relevant outcome markers. Interpreting results The audience for research into admissions is a diverse one. Range restriction Range restriction creates challenges with these studies because outcomes can only be observed for successful applicants, who are likely as a group to have scored higher in the UKCAT than unsuccessful applicants.
Implications for the future UKCAT should encourage stakeholders to continue to undertake predictive validity studies in order to further inform the development of the test and selection processes more generally. Recommendations for future studies Those undertaking future studies should: Provide consistent detail regarding assessment outcomes being investigated.
Interpret findings clearly for the benefit of selectors and test takers. Focus on the lack of evidence regarding dentistry.
Strengths and limitations A particular challenge of longitudinal studies in selection is that during the time required to observe relevant output measures nothing else stands still. Conclusion This systematic review supports the use of the UKCAT in selection as the test predicts performance in medical school. Supplementary Material Reviewer comments: Click here to view.
Author's manuscript: Click here to view.
0コメント