NBDE Part 1 - school averages

[Sunny_1225]

Dear current dental students,

Does anyone know where I can find a list of all the dental schools in the nation along with their NBDE Part 1 score averages?

Thanks a lot.

-Sunny

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ItsGavinC]

Dear current dental students,

Does anyone know where I can find a list of all the dental schools in the nation along with their NBDE Part 1 score averages?

You can't find it, that information isn't made public.

 

[PDizzle]

Yeah, that is not public knowledge. I have tried for weeks to get it and put it on my website but with no luck.

 

[ca_dreamin']

You can't find it, that information isn't made public.

I do not know of a formal list at this time, but I do know that we were given our rank and the rank of other schools for this past year and the year before.

Although a formal list does not exist, you can contact the schools individually to see how they have ranked and put together your own "unofficial" list if you really need to.

At OSU, we have a Board preparation class, and we were given the info at one of our first lectures. I believe that the info came from the director of student affairs, but was long enough ago that I couldn't say for sure. Try that as a starting point for any schools you desire info from.....a note of caution though: these scores do not necessarily determine how good or bad the schools may be, but rather reflect the motivation of the individuals taking the exam that particular year. Good luck!

 

[EyeAmCommi]

Schools that do score high on the boards will use it as advertisement for their program.

This is the informal list that I have put together from what I've gathered during interviews.

1) ?
2) UCLA
3) ?
4) UCSF
5) ?
...
56) ?

USC claims that their board scores are "above the national average" without giving me the specifics.

NYU claims that their board scores are "around the national average" without giving me the specifics.

That's my informal list...hope that helps.

 

[ItsGavinC]

I do not know of a formal list at this time, but I do know that we were given our rank and the rank of other schools for this past year and the year before.

Perhaps the rank of *some* other schools, but not all schools. That information isn't public knowledge, and I doubt that even the deans share it among themselves.

The OP wants a list of all schools and their board averages. Such a list does not exist, no matter which way you slice it.

 

[Dr.BadVibes]

Why would you want to know this information???? Going to a particular school is not going to help you do better on the boards if thats what you think.

For instance, of course Harvard is gonna have a stellar part 1 average because the students that go there GOT INTO HARVARD.....geez.

And of course a school like NYU will have average scores, because they have a VERY large class size consisting of high GPAs and low GPAs.....

Remember, whether you goto school in Oklahoma or a school in Boston, all dental students take the same courses for the boards and all dental students study from the SAME dental decks...sure some people are super smart and "get it" right away, but for an average student, your score on the boards depends on how extensive you study....how long you study.......and how well you memorize the decks....your school has minimal to do with it.

 

[EyeAmCommi]

Why would you want to know this information???? Going to a particular school is not going to help you do better on the boards if thats what you think.

For instance, of course Harvard is gonna have a stellar part 1 average because the students that go there GOT INTO HARVARD.....geez.

And of course a school like NYU will have average scores, because they have a VERY large class size consisting of high GPAs and low GPAs.....

So you are suggesting that the school you go to has absolutely no effect on a student's performance on the boards?

And that a school's performance on the boards is directly correlated to the gpas of the students who enter their school?

 

[backaction]

Schools that do score high on the boards will use it as advertisement for their program.

This is the informal list that I have put together from what I've gathered during interviews.

1) ?
2) UCLA
3) ?
4) UCSF
5) ?
...
56) ?

USC claims that their board scores are "above the national average" without giving me the specifics.

NYU claims that their board scores are "around the national average" without giving me the specifics.

That's my informal list...hope that helps.

My post is meaningless, but for those interested:

UConn C/O 2005 about 91.6, C/O 2006, about 89.6. We were told that we were #2 in the nation. #1 is Harvard. From what I heard the top rankers over the past few years for part 1 have been Harvard, UConn and Columbia. I beleive that UConn has been in the top 5 every year for at least the last 5 years, but maybe more important is the fact that there are zero failures year after year for both parts. I think UCSF broke into the top 5 a year or two ago, according to the website, but I don't know if they do it year after year. Anyway, every school has exceptional scores, not just these.

While there are no hard and fast rules, the top 5 rankers on part 1 do tend to have students with high DATs and are considered more competitive to gain admission to. Again, more meaningless information.

 

[EyeAmCommi]

My post is meaningless, but for those interested:

UConn C/O 2005 about 91.6, C/O 2006, about 89.6. We were told that we were #2 in the nation. #1 is Harvard. From what I heard the top rankers over the past few years for part 1 have been Harvard, UConn and Columbia. I beleive that UConn has been in the top 5 every year for at least the last 5 years, but maybe more important is the fact that there are zero failures year after year for both parts. I think UCSF broke into the top 5 a year or two ago, according to the website, but I don't know if they do it year after year. Anyway, every school has exceptional scores, not just these.

UConn is #1 on the NDBE part 2 by the way. I think that was on their website

I also noticed that we're both biased toward or respective coasts

 

[backaction]

UConn is #1 on the NDBE part 2 by the way. I think that was on their website

True, this was in 2001 or 2002 I think. That was the best year when that class was #1 for part 2 and #2 for part 1. UConn is more variable for part 2, but I think usually top 10. I think 2005's class was #12 on part 2 which was their worst in many years.

 

[EyeAmCommi]

True, this was in 2001 or 2002 I think. That was the best year when that class was #1 for part 2 and #2 for part 1. UConn is more variable for part 2, but I think usually top 10. I think 2005's class was #12 on part 2 which was their worst in many years.

I have to agree with this. It is an awesome feat considering UConn's gpas and test score averages aren't anywhere near Harvard's or UCLA's and their students are able to achieve these.

 

[S Files]

I have to agree with this. It is an awesome feat considering UConn's gpas and test score averages aren't anywhere near Harvard's or UCLA's and their students are able to achieve these.

There are no official listings. it's funny how some schools twist statistics around to make them look better. for instance, one particular school showed their average - but here's the kicker - the average was only for the students, or alumni who re-took the boards, and excluded first time takers. i'm sure others only report first time test takers. others claim to be #1 or #2, but they innocently forget to mention that they were #40 in another section. i swear i've seen about 15 schools claim to be in the top 5 every darn year. don't believe the hype.
for the most part it depends on the individual. but ya uconn or harvard students i think will inherently do better than nyu, umdnj or howard - just basing this on incoming statistics - standardized DATs sure can be a predictor of board success. something else often not considered - go to a school with a smaller class size (not trying to bash nyu here) but really, study after study has showed that teaching is enhanced in smaller groups. i think stony brook, uconn, harvard, mcgill are the smallest incoming classes - very high specialty rates and scores - i've witnessed this on my interview rounds. then again met a lot of upenn students as well - i think upenn has a larger size so again there are outliers. but back to the point, i'd say it mostly is on the shoulder of the individual.

 

[Midoc]

It wasn't even that hard of a test guys. Just put your time in and you'll do fine. More time = better score, figure out what score you need/want and put in the appropriate amount of time.

 

[captaintripps]

There are no official listings. it's funny how some schools twist statistics around to make them look better. for instance, one particular school showed their average - but here's the kicker - the average was only for the students, or alumni who re-took the boards, and excluded first time takers. i'm sure others only report first time test takers. others claim to be #1 or #2, but they innocently forget to mention that they were #40 in another section. i swear i've seen about 15 schools claim to be in the top 5 every darn year. don't believe the hype.
for the most part it depends on the individual. but ya uconn or harvard students i think will inherently do better than nyu, umdnj or howard - just basing this on incoming statistics - standardized DATs sure can be a predictor of board success. something else often not considered - go to a school with a smaller class size (not trying to bash nyu here) but really, study after study has showed that teaching is enhanced in smaller groups. i think stony brook, uconn, harvard, mcgill are the smallest incoming classes - very high specialty rates and scores - i've witnessed this on my interview rounds. then again met a lot of upenn students as well - i think upenn has a larger size so again there are outliers. but back to the point, i'd say it mostly is on the shoulder of the individual.

I'm not sure about part2 of the board, but I think the success of UConn students on part1 is likely related to the depth and extent of training in the basic medical sciences required in the dental curriculum.

 

[superchris147]

So you are suggesting that the school you go to has absolutely no effect on a student's performance on the boards?

And that a school's performance on the boards is directly correlated to the gpas of the students who enter their school?

If you are implying that certain schools are better than others in terms of teaching the concepts then I would have to disagree with you. The concepts you learn in the basic sciences in d. school are really quite simple compared to the respective classes that you took in undergrad.

I would guess that the schools with higher averages have higher averages because they emphasize the boards and take more time out of their cirriculum to let students study. Its a ton of material and the more time you have to study aka memorize the better you will do.

Like others have said it also has a lot to do with the types of personalities that attend the school. It has to do more with how much effort you put in to it than the school in my opinion

 

[backaction]

I'm not sure about part2 of the board, but I think the success of UConn students on part1 is likely related to the depth and extent of training in the basic medical sciences required in the dental curriculum.

UConn I beleive has more hours of instruction than any other program in the country. They along with Harvard and Columbia take the exact same medical sciences as the med students for years 1 and 2, so the training is much more intensive than many other programs in this respect. This will inherently make it easier to do well on the boards. It really boils down to how much knowledge you've acquired. While it's not an easy school to gain admission to, it's definitely not as hard as getting into, say, Harvard or UCLA. 2/3 of the students at UConn are from CT and surrounding New England states. The class size is around 40. They probably match better than most schools into postdoctoral programs. They also don't have grades or class rank, but your overall performance will be mentioned in the Dean's Eval.

 

[dentalstax007]

The school can ABSOLUTELY have an effect on your boards.

Some schools will give you NO time off to study for boards. While other schools may give you 2 months off to study, or lighten the workload significantly leading up to the exam date.

You guys are telling me that will have no effect on your board scores? That's B.S. We had a schedule of 9-5 class, then tons of labwork almost every night, then only got 1 week off to study for boards. I can guarantee you that had I had 4 weeks to study, my scores would have been significantly higher.

So you are suggesting that the school you go to has absolutely no effect on a student's performance on the boards?

 

[S Files]

I'm not sure about part2 of the board, but I think the success of UConn students on part1 is likely related to the depth and extent of training in the basic medical sciences required in the dental curriculum.

Agreed. while ultimately the individual can score as high as what they put in, schools where the dents and meds take the same extent of basic sciences together, yes they are at an advantage. remember the schools i mentioned with a disproportionate # of interviewees for oral surg and ortho? uconn, harvard, mcgill - all these 3 schools have a fully integrated curriculum. not sure of stony brook or upenn. for what it's worth.
again, i am still skeptical when some schools claim "oh we were # 3, #1. remember there's a fine line between statistics and lies!
and yes concepts in basic sciences are the same, but some schools do go into much more extensive detail that others. for example some d students do full cadaver dissection vs. others only doing head and neck. believe me that'll make a difference.

 

[Sunny_1225]

The school can ABSOLUTELY have an effect on your boards.

Some schools will give you NO time off to study for boards. While other schools may give you 2 months off to study, or lighten the workload significantly leading up to the exam date.

You guys are telling me that will have no effect on your board scores? That's B.S. We had a schedule of 9-5 class, then tons of labwork almost every night, then only got 1 week off to study for boards. I can guarantee you that had I had 4 weeks to study, my scores would have been significantly higher.

Wow,

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question.

The reason why I'm asking is out of pure curiosity.

When I was at USC for my interview, I spoke with a dental student in 4th year who just got matched to a 6 year OMFS residency program.

She told me that a big factor of your selection to such a program would be based on your board examination scores. She also said that since USC gives their students 1 month off from school to study for the board exam, she had the opportunity to put strong effort and achieve a great score.

I was strongly convinced by her that the ample studying time made a large difference. Other 4th year students that I talked to agreed.

Dr. BadVibes, I understand and respect your comment about the responsibility being placed on the individual, as opposed to the institution.
However, many others have given me reason to believe that more in involved.

Thanks everyone again for the contribution!

 

[ItsGavinC]

I was strongly convinced by her that the ample studying time made a large difference. Other 4th year students that I talked to agreed.

I don't fully agree with this. I think a HUGE part of doing well is doing well in your coursework, and I firmly believe that some schools have more stringent coursework than others. This allows some students to only study for 2 weeks and get exceptional scores because their curriculum focused on the items they needed to learn.

Doing well in your courses (which means you've really learned the material) is the #1 way to get a great board score. High-yield studying as a review method will help refresh the details you may have forgotten but nothing replaces a solid core foundation.

 

[Sunny_1225]

I don't fully agree with this. I think a HUGE part of doing well is doing well in your coursework, and I firmly believe that some schools have more stringent coursework than others. This allows some students to only study for 2 weeks and get exceptional scores because their curriculum focused on the items they needed to learn.

Doing well in your courses (which means you've really learned the material) is the #1 way to get a great board score. High-yield studying as a review method will help refresh the details you may have forgotten but nothing replaces a solid core foundation.

Thanks for your input!

 

[ca_dreamin']

Perhaps the rank of *some* other schools, but not all schools. That information isn't public knowledge, and I doubt that even the deans share it among themselves.

The OP wants a list of all schools and their board averages. Such a list does not exist, no matter which way you slice it.

I *doubt* it too, but I have not had the opportunity to attend all conversations between all deans throughout time. 'No matter how you slice it', that would be a tough task.

 

[UNLV OMS GUNNABE]

I don't fully agree with this. I think a HUGE part of doing well is doing well in your coursework, and I firmly believe that some schools have more stringent coursework than others. This allows some students to only study for 2 weeks and get exceptional scores because their curriculum focused on the items they needed to learn.

Doing well in your courses (which means you've really learned the material) is the #1 way to get a great board score. High-yield studying as a review method will help refresh the details you may have forgotten but nothing replaces a solid core foundation.

People who do well in their courses end up putting in more time studying for those classes and are the type of students who will study more for the boards. Study hard and you will do well.

P.S. I think UNLV was #4 in the nation last year
P.P.S. That was a joke

 

[The TX OMS]

Why would you want to know this information???? Going to a particular school is not going to help you do better on the boards if thats what you think.

For instance, of course Harvard is gonna have a stellar part 1 average because the students that go there GOT INTO HARVARD.....geez.

And of course a school like NYU will have average scores, because they have a VERY large class size consisting of high GPAs and low GPAs.....

Remember, whether you goto school in Oklahoma or a school in Boston, all dental students take the same courses for the boards and all dental students study from the SAME dental decks...sure some people are super smart and "get it" right away, but for an average student, your score on the boards depends on how extensive you study....how long you study.......and how well you memorize the decks....your school has minimal to do with it.

This is the best post I have read in a long time.

Gay avatar, though.

I did ****ty in dental school and still did well on the boards and got into OMS. I thought dental school was a lot of excitement about nothing.

 

[The TX OMS]

I have to agree with this. It is an awesome feat considering UConn's gpas and test score averages aren't anywhere near Harvard's or UCLA's and their students are able to achieve these.

Yeah, I mean if you don't go to Harvard or UCLA you can barely walk up right and wipe you own ass. In fact, I think Harvard and UCLA are the only two school in the country that enroll actual humans. Everyone else just enrolls knuckle-dragging "missing links" who can hold their hand still enough to cut a prep.

 

[UNLV OMS GUNNABE]

content removed by Admin for TOS violation

Are you kidding me? This has to be the most inapropriate post I have ever seen. Show some freakin control, I'm tired of reading this kind of crap.

 

[Dr. Nubbs]

This is the best post I have read in a long time.

Gay avatar, though.

I did ****ty in dental school and still did well on the boards and got into OMS. I thought dental school was a lot of excitement about nothing.

Whoa there, Tex...I won't have people bashing on The Cheat or any other Homestar Runner characters. Homestar Runner is the Seinfield of meaningless internet sites.

Good times, good times.

Nubbs

 

[deebog01]

Whoa there, Tex...I won't have people bashing on The Cheat or any other Homestar Runner characters. Homestar Runner is the Seinfield of meaningless internet sites.

Good times, good times.

Nubbs

My g/f knows someone with a Trogdor tattoo.

 

[mike3kgt]

Perhaps the rank of *some* other schools, but not all schools. That information isn't public knowledge, and I doubt that even the deans share it among themselves.

The OP wants a list of all schools and their board averages. Such a list does not exist, no matter which way you slice it.

Gavin,

This list does exist and yes, all the deans know exactly how each other school has performed on the exam. It is not public knowledge; rather, it is private to the administration of each dental school. There is a reason why this information is not made public because the numbers undermine the simple fact that national written exams simply test esoteric knowledge and not clinical aptitude. Most schools wish to recruit people whom they think will be good practitioners or possible future dental researchers/academics.

NBDE Part I performance is absolutely linked to DAT score, however. If you are truly concerned with Part I performance, take a look at your DAT score. According to De Ball, S. et al J Dent Educ. 66(4): 478-484 2002 :

"Four of the six individual areas examined by the DAT were statistically significant predictors of at least one subtest of Part I of the NBDE. The DAT scores in perceptual ability and general chemistry were not significant predictors of student performance on any of the subtests of Part I of the NBDE. DAT scores in biology, organic chemistry, and quantitative analysis were all predictive of student performance on one of the subtests of Part I of the NBDE. ... The most consistent predictor relationship (r=.390 to .428) exists between student scores in reading comprehension and student performance on Part I of the NBDE. The DAT reading comprehension score was moderately predictive of student performance on all of the subtests of Part I of the NBDE."

And also Bergman, A et. al J Dent Educ. 70(3): 258-262 2006:
"DAT reading comprehension scores were statistically significantly associated with performance on all four subsections of the NBDE Part I. DAT general and organic chemistry scores were associated with performance on the microbiology and pathology subtest of NBDE Part I. Performance on the perceptual ability test was associated with performance on the dental anatomy and occlusion subtest. Performance on the DAT reading comprehension subtest was the most reliable predictor of performance on the NBDE Part I."

Therefore, Pre-Dent's... take a look at yourself when it comes to asking the question, "which school will give me a better Part I score?" Now I don't suppose a research paper will ever be published "Which school prepares students for the NBDE Part I better" so stick with the facts and what has been scientifically studied.

-Mike

 

[ajmacgregor]

Gavin,

This list does exist and yes, all the deans know exactly how each other school has performed on the exam. It is not public knowledge; rather, it is private to the administration of each dental school. There is a reason why this information is not made public because the numbers undermine the simple fact that national written exams simply test esoteric knowledge and not clinical aptitude. Most schools wish to recruit people whom they think will be good practitioners or possible future dental researchers/academics.

NBDE Part I performance is absolutely linked to DAT score, however. If you are truly concerned with Part I performance, take a look at your DAT score. According to De Ball, S. et al J Dent Educ. 66(4): 478-484 2002 :

"Four of the six individual areas examined by the DAT were statistically significant predictors of at least one subtest of Part I of the NBDE. The DAT scores in perceptual ability and general chemistry were not significant predictors of student performance on any of the subtests of Part I of the NBDE. DAT scores in biology, organic chemistry, and quantitative analysis were all predictive of student performance on one of the subtests of Part I of the NBDE. ... The most consistent predictor relationship (r=.390 to .428) exists between student scores in reading comprehension and student performance on Part I of the NBDE. The DAT reading comprehension score was moderately predictive of student performance on all of the subtests of Part I of the NBDE."

And also Bergman, A et. al J Dent Educ. 70(3): 258-262 2006:
"DAT reading comprehension scores were statistically significantly associated with performance on all four subsections of the NBDE Part I. DAT general and organic chemistry scores were associated with performance on the microbiology and pathology subtest of NBDE Part I. Performance on the perceptual ability test was associated with performance on the dental anatomy and occlusion subtest. Performance on the DAT reading comprehension subtest was the most reliable predictor of performance on the NBDE Part I."

Therefore, Pre-Dent's... take a look at yourself when it comes to asking the question, "which school will give me a better Part I score?" Now I don't suppose a research paper will ever be published "Which school prepares students for the NBDE Part I better" so stick with the facts and what has been scientifically studied.

-Mike

Hate to break it to you Mike, but you need to learn some statistics. If you actually read these papers carefully (instead of just reading the abstracts), you'll see that at most, only 30% of the variability in NBDE Part I scores can be explained by variability in DAT scores (i.e. r-squared < 0.30). In the latter study you mentioned, that number is even lower, about 10%. In fact, if you read the last line of the abstract of the latter paper, the authors actually point out that "the variability in NBDE Part I scores is not accounted for significantly by variability in DAT scores."

I would hardly say that an r-squared value of 10 - 30% is evidence of an "absolute linkage". What about the other 70 - 90%?

 

[mike3kgt]

Hate to break it to you Mike, but you need to learn some statistics. If you actually read these papers carefully (instead of just reading the abstracts), you'll see that at most, only 30% of the variability in NBDE Part I scores can be explained by variability in DAT scores (i.e. r-squared < 0.30). In the latter study you mentioned, that number is even lower, about 10%. In fact, if you read the last line of the abstract of the latter paper, the authors actually point out that "the variability in NBDE Part I scores is not accounted for significantly by variability in DAT scores."

I would hardly say that an r-squared value of 10 - 30% is evidence of an "absolute linkage". What about the other 70 - 90%?

Now if you are talking about the first study in JDE and assuming the journal appropriately verifies their researcher's statistical models, R-squared is not what I look at as being the most critical value in the study. Without getting into a statistics-theory fight (which I find incredibly boring), simply looking at the p-values, which many who interpret these studies prefer to use because it will indicate statistical significance of the results and the lower the number, the less chance the two are explained by chance alone. R-squared values indicate the fraction of variance explained by any particular model (how well the model fits the data) and in some models (such as stocks or investment returns) may be low (r-squared < 10%) and still be “statistically significant”. Ideally, we would like to explain most if not all of the original variability but in many cases, such as this, it is most likely impossible to explain all of the variability in DAT performance and NBDE performance.

According to De Ball, S et al.'s study, the relationship between part I anatomic sciences scores and DAT reading comp scores are statistically very significant (p<.01). Further, relationship between Part I biochem/physio scores and DAT reading comp (p<.05), dat biology (p<.05), and dat gen chemistry (p<.05) are statistically significant. The relationship between Part I micro/path scores and DAT reading comp scores are statistically very significant (p<.01). Lastly, the relationship between Part I dental anatomy scores and DAT Quantitative and reading comp are statistically very significant (p<.01).

I did not look into the details of the Harvard study because I could not get a physical copy of the study and I am unsure of their statistical analyses. I did, however, utilize the information as context because their study concludes the same fact that De Ball's study does, that the relationship between reading comp scores on the DAT and total NBDE scores are statistically significant.

Now I suppose using the term “absolute linkage” was probably inappropriate, as with this stuff there are no absolutes… it was intended to be more of a figurative phrase rather than literal. Now what was inappropriate was the language and tone of your response, but that’s another story.

I hope I am not trying to make readers feel like I am a fan of more emphasis on the DAT... rather I am not a fan of using the DAT too heavily in the admissions processes. Remember my original post that I actually believe both exams merely test esoteric knowledge. I am hoping to point out what has been scientifically studied and is testable & verifiable rather than stating some random information like "school x prepares you better for part I because their biochem class is taught with the med school." Dental admissions deans do, however, read JDE and may utilize the information presented in the article to base their criteria for admissions.

-Mike

 

[ajmacgregor]

Now if you are talking about the first study in JDE and assuming the journal appropriately verifies their researcher's statistical models, R-squared is not what I look at as being the most critical value in the study. Without getting into a statistics-theory fight (which I find incredibly boring), simply looking at the p-values, which many who interpret these studies prefer to use because it will indicate statistical significance of the results and the lower the number, the less chance the two are explained by chance alone. R-squared values indicate the fraction of variance explained by any particular model (how well the model fits the data) and in some models (such as stocks or investment returns) may be low (r-squared < 10%) and still be “statistically significant”. Ideally, we would like to explain most if not all of the original variability but in many cases, such as this, it is most likely impossible to explain all of the variability in DAT performance and NBDE performance.

According to De Ball, S et al.'s study, the relationship between part I anatomic sciences scores and DAT reading comp scores are statistically very significant (p<.01). Further, relationship between Part I biochem/physio scores and DAT reading comp (p<.05), dat biology (p<.05), and dat gen chemistry (p<.05) are statistically significant. The relationship between Part I micro/path scores and DAT reading comp scores are statistically very significant (p<.01). Lastly, the relationship between Part I dental anatomy scores and DAT Quantitative and reading comp are statistically very significant (p<.01).

I did not look into the details of the Harvard study because I could not get a physical copy of the study and I am unsure of their statistical analyses. I did, however, utilize the information as context because their study concludes the same fact that De Ball's study does, that the relationship between reading comp scores on the DAT and total NBDE scores are statistically significant.

Now I suppose using the term “absolute linkage” was probably inappropriate, as with this stuff there are no absolutes… it was intended to be more of a figurative phrase rather than literal. Now what was inappropriate was the language and tone of your response, but that’s another story.

I hope I am not trying to make readers feel like I am a fan of more emphasis on the DAT... rather I am not a fan of using the DAT too heavily in the admissions processes. Remember my original post that I actually believe both exams merely test esoteric knowledge. I am hoping to point out what has been scientifically studied and is testable & verifiable rather than stating some random information like "school x prepares you better for part I because their biochem class is taught with the med school." Dental admissions deans do, however, read JDE and may utilize the information presented in the article to base their criteria for admissions.

-Mike

First, you can't just look at p-values. There has to be a MEASURE of the DEGREE of ASSOCIATION, which a p-value doesn't give you. The p-value in the context of any statistical test is just the probability that the null hypothesis was incorrectly rejected. It means nothing in terms of quantifying the magnitude of association, aside from saying that it is non-null. If the DAT only explains (at most, very likely less than) 30% of the variability in NBDE Part I scores, then you must concede that the majority of performance on the NBDE Part I is determined by other factors. The p-values in these studies just demonstrate that the incredibly low r-squared values are statistically significant. It doesn't change the fact that they are incredibly low r-squared values. Let's say that the r-squared was 0.0001 but the p-value was 0.001, would you then say that the study showed strong evidence? How about if we take the average of the R-squared for the two studies and get 0.17...What now? The p-value is still statistically significant, but the model only explains 17% of the variability. I think most reasonable people will agree that, in this context, the VAST MAJORITY of NBDE Part I performance is not accounted for by DAT performance.

Secondly, none of these things occur in isolation. That is, neither of these two studies adjusted for confounders beyond DAT performance (i.e. GPA, Science GPA, Major, type of curriculum, etc.). Both studies performed multiple linear regressions, but neither corrected for the fact that DAT subtest scores are highly correlated with one another (i.e. performance on one part of the DAT is certainly associated with performance on other parts). If you put two (or more, since the Biology, General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and QR scores are likely highly correlated with each other) highly correlated variables into a multiple linear regression, which both of these studies did, the power of the model goes down substantially.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but there is such a thing as reading the literature critically; you are trying to stretch these data beyond their limits. I'm sure that deans will read these papers and look at the discussions (heck, the Harvard paper has two deans as co-authors), where the authors correctly point out the (substantial) limitations of both studies. One could absolutely use either of these papers as evidence NOT to weight the DAT heavily in admissions decisions. I think it is certainly likely that deans of dental schools will be able to read these papers critically and come to the same conclusion.

 

[rsalasv]

ucsf is coo'

 

[armorshell]

You're responding to a year and a half old thread

 

[rsalasv]

Ma' bad

 

[brengy]

!

 

[Flipper405]

gosh your answer now is responding to three years old responding.

hahah... awesome.

 

[rsalasv]

Just updated to a 56k modem. since when did this thing have smiley faces? I feel like a speed demon

 

[KristopherTruth]

This is hilarious

 

[GonnaDoIt]

Ma' bad

This may be the hardest I've laughed at anything on SDN.

 

[Toothenstien]

If

 

[rsalasv]

Chuck. Chuck. It's Marvin - your cousin, Marvin BERRY. You know that new sound you're looking for? Well, listen to this

 

[rsalasv]

How did it turn out?

 

[rsalasv]

bump