Resident Selection in the Wake of United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 Transition to Pass/Fail Scoring.

INTRODUCTION: The numeric score for the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 is one of the only universal, objective, scaled criteria for comparing the many students who apply to orthopaedic surgery residency. However, on February 12, 2020, it was announced that Step 1 would be transitioning to pass/fail scoring. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the most important factors used for interview and resident selection after this change and (2) to assess how these factors have changed compared with a previous report on resident selection. METHODS: A survey was distributed to the program directors (PDs) of all 179 orthopaedic surgery programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Questions focused on current resident selection practices and the impact of the Step 1 score transition on expected future practices. RESULTS: A total of 78 PDs (44%) responded to the survey. Over half of PDs (59%) responded that United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 clinical knowledge (CK) score is the factor that will increase most in importance after Step 1 transitions to pass/fail, and 90% will encourage applicants to include their Step 2 CK score on their applications. The factors rated most important in resident selection from zero to 10 were subinternship performance (9.05), various aspects of interview performance (7.49 to 9.01), rank in medical school (7.95), letters of recommendation (7.90), and Step 2 CK score (7.27). Compared with a 2002 report, performance on manual skills testing, subinternship performance, published research, letters of recommendations, and telephone call on applicants' behalf showed notable increases in importance. DISCUSSION: As Step 2 CK is expected to become more important in the residency application process, current applicant stress on Step 1 scores may simply move to Step 2 CK scores. Performance on subinternships will remain a critical aspect of residency application, as it was viewed as the most important resident selection factor and has grown in importance compared with a previous report.

Selecting top candidates for medical school selection interviews- a non-compensatory approach.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools apply a range of selection methods to ensure that admitted students succeed in the program. In Australia, selection tools typically include measures of academic achievement (e.g. the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank - ATAR) and aptitude tests (e.g. the Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admissions Test - UMAT). These are most commonly used to determine which applicants are invited for additional selection processes, such as interviews. However, no previous study has examined the efficacy of the first part of the selection process. In particular, are compensatory or non-compensatory approaches more effective in evaluating the outcomes of cognitive and aptitude tests, and do they affect the demographics of students selected for interview? METHODS: This study utilised data from consecutive cohorts of mainstream domestic students who applied to enter the UNSW Medicine program between 2013 to 2018. A compensatory ranked selection model was compared with a non-compensatory ranked model. Initially, ATAR marks and UMAT scores for each applicant were ranked within each cohort. In the compensatory model, the mean of the ATAR and UMAT ranks were used to determine the outcome. In the non-compensatory model, the lowest rank of ATAR and UMAT determined the outcome for each applicant. The impact of each model on the gender and socioeconomic status of applicants selected to interview was evaluated across all cohorts. RESULTS: The non-compensatory ranked selection model resulted in substantially higher ATAR and UMAT thresholds for invitation to interview, with no significant effect on the socioeconomic status of the selected applicants. CONCLUSIONS: These results are important, demonstrating that it is possible to raise the academic threshold for selection to medicine without having any negative impact on applicants from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Overall, the evidence gathered in this study suggests that a non-compensatory model is preferable for selecting applicants for medical student selection interview.

Effects of range restriction and criterion contamination on differential validity of the SAT by race/ethnicity and sex.

We illustrate the effects of range restriction and a form of criterion contamination (individual differences in course-taking patterns) on the validity of SAT scores for predicting college academic performance. College data facilitate exploration of differential validity's determinants because they (a) permit the use multivariate range-restriction corrections to more accurately account for differential range restriction across subgroups and (b) allow for separate examinations of composite performance and specific performance episodes, the latter of which controls for ecological contamination of composite performance due to individuals' choices of performance opportunities. Using data from 363,004 students at 107 U.S. institutions, we found that controlling for course-taking patterns resulted in validity coefficients that were appreciably larger than predictors' correlations with obtained grade point averages (GPAs). The validities of SAT scores for predicting the first-year college performance of Black and Hispanic students were not significantly different from the validity for White students after correcting for both course-taking patterns and differential range restriction, but significant Black-White differences were detected for predicting 4-year cumulative performance. Validity estimates for predicting both first-year and 4-year cumulative performance were significantly smaller among Asian students than White students after making these corrections. The SAT's observed validity for predicting college GPAs was substantially lower for males than females and, unexpectedly, controlling for course-taking patterns increased male-female validity differences. Implications for personnel selection research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Avaliação do ensino e aprendizagem de noções básicas de tratamento de queimados entre alunos do curso de medicina / Assessment of teaching and learning burn treatment basics among medical students

Introdução: Agravo de grande importância biopsicossocial, queimadura é um tema crucial na formação médica, uma vez que recém-formados se deparam com pacientes que sofreram queimaduras nos mais variados cenários profissionais. Métodos: Este estudo avaliou o ensino e a aprendizagem do tema queimaduras em alunos do curso de Medicina de uma faculdade pública do Estado de São Paulo; foi aplicado um questionário específico para avaliar o conhecimento sobre o atendimento inicial ao paciente queimado na primeira série (grupo 1 - 54 estudantes), e na sexta série (grupo 2 - 60 estudantes). Resultados: Observou-se, no grupo 1, grande desconhecimento sobre o tema, com média geral de desconhecimento ("erros") de 70,98% e de acertos de 29,02%; no grupo 2, essas taxas foram de 36,66 % e 63,34 %, respectivamente. Somente 63,34% dos alunos do sexto ano conseguiriam conduzir adequadamente o tratamento de um paciente queimado e, consequentemente, oferecer a este paciente um melhor prognóstico. Conclusões: Os dados são preocupantes, uma vez que não se verificou conhecimento nem preparo adequados dos formandos para atendimento de pacientes queimados, e que queimaduras são situações de emergência que exigem intervenção médica rápida, adequada e eficiente, a fim de reduzir a morbimortalidade das vítimas.

Introduction: Burns, an injury of high biopsychosocial importance, are a crucial issue in medical training, and newly graduated students face burn patients in a variety of professional settings. Methods: This study assessed the teaching and learning of burns among medical students at a public facility in the State of São Paulo; a specific questionnaire was applied to evaluate first year (Group 1: 54 students) and sixth year (Group 2: 60 students) medical students' knowledge about the initial care of burn patients. Results: In Group 1, there was a substantial lack of knowledge about the subject, with a general average incorrect answer rate ("errors") of 70.98% and a correct answer rate of 29.02%; in Group 2, these rates were 36.66% and 63.34%, respectively. Only 63.34% of the sixth-year students would be able to adequately conduct the treatment of a burn patient, gauged by their ability to offer a patient a better prognosis. Conclusions: The data are disturbing, since adequate knowledge and preparation of the trainees for the care of burn patients has not been verified, and burns are emergency situations that require prompt, adequate, and efficient medical intervention to reduce patients' morbidity and mortality.

Predictive validity of the UKCAT for medical school undergraduate performance: a national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) has been shown to have a modest but statistically significant ability to predict aspects of academic performance throughout medical school. Previously, this ability has been shown to be incremental to conventional measures of educational performance for the first year of medical school. This study evaluates whether this predictive ability extends throughout the whole of undergraduate medical study and explores the potential impact of using the test as a selection screening tool. METHODS: This was an observational prospective study, linking UKCAT scores, prior educational attainment and sociodemographic variables with subsequent academic outcomes during the 5 years of UK medical undergraduate training. The participants were 6812 entrants to UK medical schools in 2007-8 using the UKCAT. The main outcome was academic performance at each year of medical school. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was also conducted, treating the UKCAT as a screening test for a negative academic outcome (failing at least 1 year at first attempt). RESULTS: All four of the UKCAT scale scores significantly predicted performance in theory- and skills-based exams. After adjustment for prior educational achievement, the UKCAT scale scores remained significantly predictive for most years. Findings from the ROC analysis suggested that, if used as a sole screening test, with the mean applicant UKCAT score as the cut-off, the test could be used to reject candidates at high risk of failing at least 1 year at first attempt. However, the 'number needed to reject' value would be high (at 1.18), with roughly one candidate who would have been likely to pass all years at first sitting being rejected for every higher risk candidate potentially declined entry on this basis. CONCLUSIONS: The UKCAT scores demonstrate a statistically significant but modest degree of incremental predictive validity throughout undergraduate training. Whilst the UKCAT could be considered a fairly crude screening tool for future academic performance, it may offer added value when used in conjunction with other selection measures. Future work should focus on the optimum role of such tests within the selection process and the prediction of post-graduate performance.

Longitudinal assessment of the impact of the use of the UK clinical aptitude test for medical student selection.

CONTEXT: Medical schools are increasingly using novel tools to select applicants. The UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) is one such tool and measures mental abilities, attitudes and professional behaviour conducive to being a doctor using constructs likely to be less affected by socio-demographic factors than traditional measures of potential. Universities are free to use UKCAT as they see fit but three broad modalities have been observed: 'borderline', 'factor' and 'threshold'. This paper aims to provide the first longitudinal analyses assessing the impact of the different uses of UKCAT on making offers to applicants with different socio-demographic characteristics. METHODS: Multilevel regression was used to model the outcome of applications to UK medical schools during the period 2004-2011 (data obtained from UCAS), adjusted for sex, ethnicity, schooling, parental occupation, educational attainment, year of application and UKCAT use (borderline, factor and threshold). RESULTS: The three ways of using the UKCAT did not differ in their impact on making the selection process more equitable, other than a marked reversal for female advantage when applied in a 'threshold' manner. Our attempt to model the longitudinal impact of the use of the UKCAT in its threshold format found again the reversal of female advantage, but did not demonstrate similar statistically significant reductions of the advantages associated with White ethnicity, higher social class and selective schooling. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate attenuation of the advantage of being female but no changes in admission rates based on White ethnicity, higher social class and selective schooling. In view of this, the utility of the UKCAT as a means to widen access to medical schools among non-White and less advantaged applicants remains unproven.

A simple screen performed at school entry can predict academic under-achievement at age seven in children born very preterm.

AIM: We aimed to compare the academic outcomes of a cohort of children born very preterm (VPT, <32 weeks of gestation) and children born at term at age 7 years and assess the ability of a pre-academic skill screen at age five to predict later academic impairment in children born VPT at age seven. METHODS: One hundred ninety-four children born VPT (born with either gestational age <30 weeks or birthweight <1250 g) and 70 controls born at term from a prospective birth cohort were compared on academic outcomes (Wide Range Achievement Test, WRAT4) at age seven using regression analyses. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were used to determine whether pre-academic skills (Kaufman Survey of Early Academic and Language Skills, K-SEALS) at age five predicted academic impairment at age seven in 174 of the VPT cohort. RESULTS: At the age of 7 years, children born VPT had lower mean word reading (-9.7, 95% CI: -14.7 to -4.6), spelling (-8.3, 95% CI: -13.3 to -3.3) and math computation (-10.9, 95% CI: -15.3 to -6.5) scores (all P-values ≤0.001) compared with controls born at term, even after adjusting for social risk and time since school commencement. In terms of pre-academic screening, the Numbers, Letters and Words subtest of the K-SEALS had adequate sensitivity and specificity (70-80%) for predicting children with academic impairment at age seven. CONCLUSIONS: Children born VPT underperformed in academic outcomes at age seven compared with controls born at term. A pre-academic screening tool used at school entry can predict children born VPT at risk of academic impairment at age seven who could benefit from targeted early intervention.

Training residents to be factually accurate and articulate: A case study using foetal heart rate monitoring nomenclature.

Careful communication between members of the obstetric team about intrapartum foetal heart rate is critical for clinical management and patient safety. This study evaluated the benefits of two testing modalities in assessing resident physician knowledge of the 2008 NICHD nomenclature. Multiple-choice (MC) and short-answer (SA) examinations were administered to Obstetrics and Gynecology resident physicians before an educational intervention and then immediately after the training, at 6 months and at 12 months. Test scores on both the MC and the SA examinations improved after the training session. The improvement was sustained over the course of the study. Residents performed higher on the MC examination than on the SA test. This study suggests that formalised teaching in foetal heart rate monitoring improves resident physician knowledge of the NICHD nomenclature and that SA examinations may better discriminate between residents who are and are not able to accurately articulate foetal heart rate monitoring terminology.

A Cross-sectional Study of Current Doctors' Performance in a Modified Version of a Medical School Admission Aptitude Test: The UKCAT.

The 2-hour long United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) is used by many universities in the United Kingdom as part of their selection process for undergraduate medical and dentistry degrees. We aimed to compare the performance of senior doctors in primary and secondary care and across a range of specialties, in a modified version of the medical school entrance examination-the mUKCAT. Lay people were also included in the study. Despite its widespread use, this is the first study that examines the performance of senior clinicians in the UKCAT.The study used a prospective cross-sectional design. It used mock questions from the UKCAT website to generate an mUKCAT that was anticipated to take 15 minutes to complete. In all, 167 doctors at consultant, general practitioner (GP), or specialty trainee grade and 26 lay people took part.The overall mean mUKCAT score of all participants was 2486 (69.1%). Of the total cohort, 126 (65.3%) scored above our designated threshold of 2368 and were deemed to have passed the mUKCAT. Excluding lay people, 113 (67.7%) of the 167 doctors scored above that threshold. Medical specialty was associated with overall score (P = 0.003), with anesthetists/intensive care physicians scoring highest (n = 20, mean score 2660) and GPs scoring lowest (n = 38, mean score 2302). Academics outperformed nonacademics (mean score of academics, n = 44 vs nonacademics, n = 123: 2750 vs 2406; P < 0.001). Those clinicians in senior management positions scored lower than those in "standard" roles (mean score of senior management, n = 31 vs standard roles, n = 136: 2332 vs 2534, mean difference 202, 95% confidence interval 67-337, P = 0.004).In the situational judgement section, there was no evidence that specialty was associated with score (P = 0.15). Academics exhibited greater situational judgement than their nonacademic colleagues (academics vs nonacademics: 69.8 vs 63.6%; P = 0.01).The majority of senior clinicians passed our mUKCAT. Academics and anesthetists were found to be the best performers, with GPs and those in senior management positions performing the worst.

A model of four hierarchical levels to train Chinese residents' teaching skills for "practice-based learning and improvement" competency.

OBJECTIVES: The current study focused on validating a protocol for training and auditing the resident's practice-based learning and improvement (PBLI) and quality improvement (QI) competencies for primary care. METHODS: Twelve second-year (R2), 12 first-year (R1) and 12 postgraduate year-1 residents were enrolled into group A, B and C, respectively, as trainees. After three training protocols had been completed, a writing test, self-assessed questionnaire and mini-OSTE and end-of-rotation assessment were used in auditing the PBLI competency, performance and teaching ability of trainees. RESULTS: Baseline expert-assessed PBLI and QI knowledge application tool writing scores were low for the R1 and R2 residents. After three training protocols, PBLI and QI proficiencies, performance and teaching abilities were improved to similar levels cross the three training levels of residents based on the expert-assessed writing test-audited assessments and on the faculty and standardized clerk-assessed end-of-rotation-/mini-OSTE-audited assessments. CONCLUSION: The different four-level hierarchical protocols used to teach group A, B and C were equally beneficial and fitted their needs; namely the different levels of the trainees. Specifically, each level was able to augment their PBLI and QI proficiency. This educational intervention helps medical institutions to train residents as PBLI instructors.

Addressing criticisms of existing predictive bias research: cognitive ability test scores still overpredict African Americans' job performance.

Predictive bias studies have generally suggested that cognitive ability test scores overpredict job performance of African Americans, meaning these tests are not predictively biased against African Americans. However, at least 2 issues call into question existing over-/underprediction evidence: (a) a bias identified by Aguinis, Culpepper, and Pierce (2010) in the intercept test typically used to assess over-/underprediction and (b) a focus on the level of observed validity instead of operational validity. The present study developed and utilized a method of assessing over-/underprediction that draws on the math of subgroup regression intercept differences, does not rely on the biased intercept test, allows for analysis at the level of operational validity, and can use meta-analytic estimates as input values. Therefore, existing meta-analytic estimates of key parameters, corrected for relevant statistical artifacts, were used to determine whether African American job performance remains overpredicted at the level of operational validity. African American job performance was typically overpredicted by cognitive ability tests across levels of job complexity and across conditions wherein African American and White regression slopes did and did not differ. Because the present study does not rely on the biased intercept test and because appropriate statistical artifact corrections were carried out, the present study's results are not affected by the 2 issues mentioned above. The present study represents strong evidence that cognitive ability tests generally overpredict job performance of African Americans.

Music therapy career aptitude and generalized self-efficacy in music therapy students.

BACKGROUND: While the Music Therapy Career Aptitude Test (MTCAT) provides a measure of student aptitude, measures of perceived self-efficacy may provide additional information about a students' suitability for a music therapy career. OBJECTIVE: As a first step in determining whether future studies examining combined scores from the MTCAT and the Generalized Self-Efficacy (GSE) scale would be useful to help predict academic success in music therapy, we explored the internal reliability of these two measures in a sample of undergraduate students, and the relationship (concurrent validity) of the measures to one another. METHODS: Eighty undergraduate music therapy students (14 male; 66 female) completed the MTCAT and GSE. To determine internal reliability we conducted tests of normality and calculated Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha for each measure. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to ascertain the strength of the relationship between the MTCAT and GSE. RESULTS: MTCAT scores were normally distributed and had high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.706). GSE scores were not normally distributed, but had high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.748). The correlation coefficient analysis revealed that MTCAT and GSE scores were moderately correlated ((r = 0.426, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: MTCAT scores can be used to partially determine perceived self-efficacy in undergraduate music therapy students; however, a more complete picture of student suitability for music therapy may be determined by administering the GSE alongside the MTCAT. Future studies are needed to determine whether combined MTCAT and GSE scores can be used to predict student success in an undergraduate music therapy program.

Predictive validity of the UK clinical aptitude test in the final years of medical school: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) was designed to address issues identified with traditional methods of selection. This study aims to examine the predictive validity of the UKCAT and compare this to traditional selection methods in the senior years of medical school. This was a follow-up study of two cohorts of students from two medical schools who had previously taken part in a study examining the predictive validity of the UKCAT in first year. METHODS: The sample consisted of 4th and 5th Year students who commenced their studies at the University of Aberdeen or University of Dundee medical schools in 2007. Data collected were: demographics (gender and age group), UKCAT scores; Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) form scores; admission interview scores; Year 4 and 5 degree examination scores. Pearson's correlations were used to examine the relationships between admissions variables, examination scores, gender and age group, and to select variables for multiple linear regression analysis to predict examination scores. RESULTS: Ninety-nine and 89 students at Aberdeen medical school from Years 4 and 5 respectively, and 51 Year 4 students in Dundee, were included in the analysis. Neither UCAS form nor interview scores were statistically significant predictors of examination performance. Conversely, the UKCAT yielded statistically significant validity coefficients between .24 and .36 in four of five assessments investigated. Multiple regression analysis showed the UKCAT made a statistically significant unique contribution to variance in examination performance in the senior years. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the UKCAT appears to predict performance better in the later years of medical school compared to earlier years and provides modest supportive evidence for the UKCAT's role in student selection within these institutions. Further research is needed to assess the predictive validity of the UKCAT against professional and behavioural outcomes as the cohort commences working life.

Differential validity for cognitive ability tests in employment and educational settings: not much more than range restriction?

The concept of differential validity suggests that cognitive ability tests are associated with varying levels of validity across ethnic groups, such that validity is lower in certain ethnic subgroups than in others. A recent meta-analysis has revived the viability of this concept. Unfortunately, data were not available in this meta-analysis to correct for range restriction within ethnic groups. We reviewed the differential validity literature and conducted 4 studies. In Study 1, we empirically demonstrated that using a cognitive ability test with a common cutoff decreases variance in test scores of Black subgroup samples more than in White samples. In Study 2, we developed a simulation that examined the effects of range restriction on estimates of differential validity. Results demonstrated that different levels of range restriction for subgroups can explain the apparent observed differential validity results in employment and educational settings (but not military settings) when no differential validity exists in the population. In Study 3, we conducted a simulation in which we examined how one corrects for range restriction affects the accuracy of these corrections. Results suggest that the correction approach using a common range restriction ratio for various subgroups may create or perpetuate the illusion of differential validity and that corrections are most accurate when done within each subgroup. Finally, in Study 4, we conducted a simulation in which we assumed differential validity in the population. We found that range restriction artificially increased the size of observed differential validity estimates when the validity of cognitive ability tests was assumed to be higher among Whites. Overall, we suggest that the concept of differential validity may be largely artifactual and current data are not definitive enough to suggest such effects exist.

Racial/ethnic subgroup differences in cognitive ability test range restriction: implications for differential validity.

Recent meta-analyses demonstrated that the observed correlation between cognitive ability test scores and performance criteria was lower for Black and Hispanic subgroups than for Asian and White subgroups in college admissions, civilian employment, and military domains (i.e., differential validity). Given mean score differences between racial/ethnic subgroups, these observed validities may have been confounded by subgroup differences in range restriction. The present study draws on data from hundreds of cognitive ability test validity studies including more than 1 million persons to investigate whether Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White subgroups have differed in amounts of range restriction. We first replicated observed differential validity results and also extended them by presenting the first meta-analytic evidence that observed cognitive ability test validity is lower for the Hispanic subgroup in civilian employment settings. All subgroups were approximately equivalently restricted in range in college admissions and civilian employment domains, but the Black subgroup was more restricted in range than the White subgroup in military studies. In all 3 domains, any differences in range restriction could not account for observed validity differences between subgroups. We also provide estimates of range-restriction-corrected validities; Black and Hispanic subgroups' corrected validities were 11.3-18.0% lower than White corrected validities across domains.

The UK Clinical Aptitude Test and clinical course performance at Nottingham: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT) was introduced in 2006 as an additional tool for the selection of medical students. It tests mental ability in four distinct domains (Verbal Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Abstract Reasoning, and Decision Analysis), and the results are available to students and admission panels in advance of the selection process. Our first study showed little evidence of any predictive validity for performance in the first two years of the Nottingham undergraduate course.The study objective was to determine whether the UKCAT scores had any predictive value for the later parts of the course, largely delivered via clinical placements. METHODS: Students entering the course in 2007 and who had taken the UKCAT were asked for permission to use their anonymised data in research. The UKCAT scores were incorporated into a database with routine pre-admission socio-demographics and subsequent course performance data. Correlation analysis was followed by hierarchical multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: The original study group comprised 204/254 (80%) of the full entry cohort. With attrition over the five years of the course this fell to 185 (73%) by Year 5. The Verbal Reasoning score and the UKCAT Total score both demonstrated some univariate correlations with clinical knowledge marks, and slightly less with clinical skills. No parts of the UKCAT proved to be an independent predictor of clinical course marks, whereas prior attainment was a highly significant predictor (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study of one cohort of Nottingham medical students showed that UKCAT scores at admission did not independently predict subsequent performance on the course. Whilst the test adds another dimension to the selection process, its fairness and validity in selecting promising students remains unproven, and requires wider investigation and debate by other schools.

Test of slope and intercept bias in college admissions: a response to Aguinis, Culpepper, and Pierce (2010).

Research on the predictive bias of cognitive tests has generally shown (a) no slope effects and (b) small intercept effects, typically favoring the minority group. Aguinis, Culpepper, and Pierce (2010) simulated data and demonstrated that statistical artifacts may have led to a lack of power to detect slope differences and an overestimate of the size of the intercept effect. In response to Aguinis et al.'s (2010) call for a revival of predictive bias research, we used data on over 475,000 students entering college between 2006 and 2008 to estimate slope and intercept differences in the college admissions context. Corrections for statistical artifacts were applied. Furthermore, plotting of regression lines supplemented traditional analyses of predictive bias to offer additional evidence of the form and extent to which predictive bias exists. Congruent with previous research on bias of cognitive tests, using SAT scores in conjunction with high school grade-point average to predict first-year grade-point average revealed minimal differential prediction (ΔR²intercept ranged from .004 to .032 and ΔR²slope ranged from .001 to .013 depending on the corrections applied and comparison groups examined). We found, on the basis of regression plots, that college grades were consistently overpredicted for Black and Hispanic students and underpredicted for female students.