2007 DAT Scores Lower Than Expected

doc toothache · Mar 21, 2008

The 2007 frequency tables recently released by the ADA show a decrease in the mean DAT scores ranging from 0.33 to 1.12. The results may be of some comfort for those who for the past year have been complaining that the test has gotten harder. Admittedly, the drop in the mean scores does come as a surprise and probably no less to the ADA since they have decided to keep the results secret. While the possibility exists that the DAT has gotten harder, there is little evidence to support the notion. With over 57 years of experience with the DAT it is hard to imagine that one fateful Wednesday morning in 2007 someone at the ADA woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to make the test more challenging. The use of standard scores makes it possible to compare the accrued knowledge of one examinee with that of all examinees. Making the test harder or easier on a periodic basis would obliterate that option. The more likely explanation is that the 2007 pool of applicants is simply much different than the applicant pool of previous years. A difference in the make up of the applicant pool would explain the lower DAT scores found for those who retake the test. It should be borne in mind that the drop in the means can be attributed to lack of performance at both ends of the spectrum. For example, in the case of QR changing the frequency of those who scored 20 and above to that found in 2006 and those who scored below 14 would bring the mean score to 17.2. That is a total of ~1000 applicants with scores over 20 and ~500 applicants with scores of 14 and below.

http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/dat/dat_users_manual.pdf

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=400209

Code:

	Dental Admission Test-Mean and Standard Deviation 								

	1988	1995	2000	2005	2006	2007		05 Reapp	

QR	15.75	16.15	16.73	16.34	16.83	15.71	-1.12	15.49	-1.23
	2.39	3.3	3.27	3.37	3.48	2.71		2.9	
BIO	15.05	16.27	17.32	17.35	17.77	17.04	-0.73	16.96	-0.56
	2.66	2.66	2.74	2.67	2.84	2.54		2.33	
RC	18.12	18.13	19.35	19.03	19.31	18.24	-1.07	18.47	-0.80
	2.7	2.78	2.94	2.89	2.87	2.59		2.74	
GC	15.54	16.4	17.27	17.35	17.9	17.22	-0.68	16.55	-1.15
	3.14	3.2	3.5	3.49	3.64	3.03		3.01	
OC	14.58	16.29	17.34	17.01	17.58	17.25	-0.33	16.31	-1.00
	3.25	3.44	3.66	3.73	3.95	3.31		3.17	
TS	15.14	16.36	17.25	17.21	17.69	17.08	-0.61	16.64	-0.82
	2.43	2.54	2.72	2.72	2.89	2.44		2.32	
AA	15.53	16.64	17.6	17.42	17.88	17.09	-0.79	16.75	-0.96
	2.24	2.43	2.56	2.57	2.7	2.22		2.17	
PA	16.21	15.96	17.19	17.19	17.44	17.96	0.52	17.06	-0.19
	2.58	2.83	2.85	2.79	2.86	3		2.6	
Count	2631	10259	7231	12528	8936	8897		3816

Danny289 · Mar 21, 2008

thanks a lot excellent post as usuall.

Shunwei · Mar 21, 2008

Well, this data do support the notion of myself and many others over the past year about how it is more difficult to score as highly on the DAT than in past years. The differential variation in the scores is pretty significant. I think it is a moot point to argue whether the test has gotten "harder"; it may just be a change in the format or approach of the test.

nwdmd · Mar 21, 2008

RAK1987 · Mar 22, 2008

... maybe it's because the exams aren't paper anymore!!! all computer based!!.... i find that the computer exams are a little tougher to get used to... just my personal opinion....

robg · Mar 23, 2008

I'm with nwdmd on this one. I retook the DAT last year and I had problems with the markers, if I left them uncapped for a few minutes they dried on me. I also couldn't write as much stuff down as I could with the scrap paper.

doc toothache · Mar 26, 2008

Accepting failure is much easier when the blame for our shortcomings can be placed squarely somewhere else.

nwdmd said:

UNR.Grad · Mar 26, 2008

interesting...

jay47 · Mar 27, 2008

doc toothache said:
The 2007 frequency tables recently released by the ADA show a decrease in the mean DAT scores ranging from 0.33 to 1.12. The results may be of some comfort for those who for the past year have been complaining that the test has gotten harder. Admittedly, the drop in the mean scores does come as a surprise and probably no less to the ADA since they have decided to keep the results secret. While the possibility exists that the DAT has gotten harder, there is little evidence to support the notion. With over 57 years of experience with the DAT it is hard to imagine that one fateful Wednesday morning in 2007 someone at the ADA woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided to make the test more challenging. The use of standard scores makes it possible to compare the accrued knowledge of one examinee with that of all examinees. Making the test harder or easier on a periodic basis would obliterate that option. The more likely explanation is that the 2007 pool of applicants is simply much different than the applicant pool of previous years. A difference in the make up of the applicant pool would explain the lower DAT scores found for those who retake the test. It should be borne in mind that the drop in the means can be attributed to lack of performance at both ends of the spectrum. For example, in the case of QR changing the frequency of those who scored 20 and above to that found in 2006 and those who scored below 14 would bring the mean score to 17.2. That is a total of ~1000 applicants with scores over 20 and ~500 applicants with scores of 14 and below.

http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/dat/dat_users_manual.pdf

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=400209

Code:

[FONT=Courier New] Dental Admission Test-Mean and Standard Deviation . [FONT=Courier New] 1988 1995 2000 2005 2006 2007 05 Reapp . [FONT=Courier New]QR 15.75 16.15 16.73 16.34 16.83 15.71 -1.12 15.49 -1.23. [FONT=Courier New] 2.39 3.3 3.27 3.37 3.48 2.71 2.9 . [FONT=Courier New]BIO 15.05 16.27 17.32 17.35 17.77 17.04 -0.73 16.96 -0.56. [FONT=Courier New] 2.66 2.66 2.74 2.67 2.84 2.54 2.33 . [FONT=Courier New]RC 18.12 18.13 19.35 19.03 19.31 18.24 -1.07 18.47 -0.80. [FONT=Courier New] 2.7 2.78 2.94 2.89 2.87 2.59 2.74 . [FONT=Courier New]GC 15.54 16.4 17.27 17.35 17.9 17.22 -0.68 16.55 -1.15. [FONT=Courier New] 3.14 3.2 3.5 3.49 3.64 3.03 3.01 . [FONT=Courier New]OC 14.58 16.29 17.34 17.01 17.58 17.25 -0.33 16.31 -1.00. [FONT=Courier New] 3.25 3.44 3.66 3.73 3.95 3.31 3.17 . [FONT=Courier New]TS 15.14 16.36 17.25 17.21 17.69 17.08 -0.61 16.64 -0.82. [FONT=Courier New] 2.43 2.54 2.72 2.72 2.89 2.44 2.32 . [FONT=Courier New]AA 15.53 16.64 17.6 17.42 17.88 17.09 -0.79 16.75 -0.96. [FONT=Courier New] 2.24 2.43 2.56 2.57 2.7 2.22 2.17 . [FONT=Courier New]PA 16.21 15.96 17.19 17.19 17.44 17.96 0.52 17.06 -0.19. [FONT=Courier New] 2.58 2.83 2.85 2.79 2.86 3 2.6 . [FONT=Courier New]Count 2631 10259 7231 12528 8936 8897 3816 .

Excellent post. If there is one thing I learned in statistics it is not to jump to conclusions about data. It must be examined from all points of view before conclusions should be drawn, and when so, taken with a grain of salt. I completely agree that it was probably more likely more applicatnts, and most likely less prepared applicants that brought the average down. However, I do believe that the marker thing on the QR section probably didn't help, although I got to use pencils and still got a 16!

hoss19 · Mar 27, 2008

now that we all know that markers & dry erase are the standard, wouldnt it be a good idea to PRACTICE with them?

BRILLIANT!

Willem · Mar 27, 2008

The fumes might cancel out all of your studying.

illbirz · Mar 27, 2008

My fear is exactly that....well not the fumes 🙄. But i have my test in a week, and i didnt practice with laminant and markers. I used good old paper and pencil. :scared:

...oh wellls, ill still live after i take the test that is unless i get in a car accident after i get out of the test center 😛. But either way, if i c that practicing on plastic with markers is needed my next time around i shall use them in my studying. ill keep ya'll posted

2007 DAT Scores Lower Than Expected

doc toothache

Full Member

Danny289

Member

Shunwei

Full Member

nwdmd

RAK1987

Full Member

robg

Junior Member

doc toothache

Full Member

UNR.Grad

Full Member

jay47

Think Positively!

hoss19

half iron, half man

Willem

Full Member

illbirz

Full Member

Similar threads