Canadian vs American DAT

[human instinct]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hey...so I am in no way saying that one is harder than the other but just wondering if American schools look at the score scale along with the DAT scores.
I ask this because for this November's Canadian DAT testing, a 19 on biology was a 90 percentile. It feels a bit unfair to compare this to say previous Canadian or US DAT results with a 19 being an 80 percentile for example.
Any thoughts???

 

[DentalP87]

are you serious? 90percentile is a 19? wth??

now i really don't wanna see my marks

 

[slick90210]

I'm looking forward to my marks.

But on topic, no i dont think American schools will take that into consideration. We are Canadians applying to be competitive in American schools against American applicants. I really doubt they will give us an advantage! 🙁 sorry to say

 

[Yeoman]

First off, the CDA should have adjusted the scores, All the sections had very low average marks.

I wrote both the feb and nov dat, i studied less than a week for feb, and about 2 months for the nov dat.

I end up doing about 2 points lower in almost all sections!!!

so someone using their feb scores will have an advantage.

As far as the American DAT, its not much easier, it just asks appropriate questions, and not random pHD level questions like the Canadian. The scoring is also better.

The highest marks on the Canadian DAT (the ones that would put you in the 95-100th percentile) are anywhere from 22-25. In the US DAT, the highest marks include numbers above 25 (even 30). So yes, the Canadian DAT is harder per se, but only because it is poorly designed.

 

[DentalP87]

First off, the CDA should have adjusted the scores, All the sections had very low average marks.

I wrote both the feb and nov dat, i studied less than a week for feb, and about 2 months for the nov dat.

I end up doing about 2 points lower in almost all sections!!!

so someone using their feb scores will have an advantage.

As far as the American DAT, its not much easier, it just asks appropriate questions, and not random pHD level questions like the Canadian. The scoring is also better.

The highest marks on the Canadian DAT (the ones that would put you in the 95-100th percentile) are anywhere from 22-25. In the US DAT, the highest marks include numbers above 25 (even 30). So yes, the Canadian DAT is harder per se, but only because it is poorly designed.

This is ridiculous. What's the point of standard scores if 90percentile is a 19??

So applicants who wrote a previous canadian DAT, say in feb, which may have had 90percentile at 21, would have a significant advantage based on DAT scores??

I really hope this isn't true. Thoughts?

 

[human instinct]

such scoring will make it an especially uphill battle for ppl like me who are applying to American schools... i really didnt know the schools wouldnt look at percentiles...

 

[slick90210]

hey human, add me on aim slick902100
i'm a canadian applying to the states as well

 

[Northside]

Should you guys have trouble getting into D-school this year... take my advice and just write the American DAT for next year. Good luck!

 

[xylem29]

Yea - this actually makes no sense guys, hopefully someone will contact CDA about this.

It's supposed to be a standardized test, it's also supposed to be designed in such a way that it's all relative - so in theory, the scores should always work out to be the same.

Ex. It might be harder to acheive 90%ile (you need to score a higher raw score than Feb) BUT the friggin standardized score should still be 21 or whatever it usually is - to drop it by 2 points? Anyway, the CDA doesn't really compare to AAMC whatsoever but this...this just makes no sense.

 

[DentalP87]

does anyone know how the standard scores correlate with percentiles for the Feb 2008 DAT?

seriously, if the Nov 2008 and Feb 2008 aren't relative, this just makes no sense (and is unfair for those of us who wrote the Nov one)

can someone who knows anything about both exams enlighten us? 😕

 

[Slacker24]

bump

 

[xylem29]

Well, if no one is going to contact the CDA about it, then I'll do it even though I never wrote the Nov 2008 DAT.

Just give me some concrete examples to work with and I'll contact them.

PM me first and then we can go from there - this is a total joke if true I'm dissapointed to even be reading about this...I wonder if you guys have a case for a lawsuit? (I'm serious).

Could you imagine what would happen if the SAT scores for different sittings were SCALED differently and schools didn't account for this and some students got screwed out of attending an Ivy school b/c of it? I think a lawsuit is definitely possible in theory but I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe some of you Nov DAT takers should look into it.

 

[doc3232]

First, MANY more people taking the American DAT hence it is expected that there be a bigger range for it. We expect higher scores. highest in year 2007 was 27. and there were 5 25s.

The fact cDAT had a 25 proves nothing. If anything, the top score should have not been that high.

Also, you can't base an argument on the fact that one person claimed a 90th percentile on ONE section is 19.

 

[xylem29]

First, MANY more people taking the American DAT hence it is expected that there be a bigger range for it. We expect higher scores. highest in year 2007 was 27. and there were 5 25s.

The fact cDAT had a 25 proves nothing. If anything, the top score should have not been that high.

Also, you can't base an argument on the fact that one person claimed a 90th percentile on ONE section is 19.

This has nothing to do with the US DAT - it has to do with the cDAT in two different sittings in the same year. Plus, it hasn't be just ONE person claiming this - it's been MANY claims by people on this board on the CDN boards and it's by people who took the DAT in BOTH settings and noticed that the distributions were not the same.

This is how it works:

If the test is standardized, then the percentile scores are always the same. The only differences between different sittings if there are large sample differences is that the RAW SCORES (ie. it can be either easier or harder to score into the 90%ile) needed to reach a certain percentile will be different. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, lol.

 

[doc3232]

This has nothing to do with the US DAT - it has to do with the cDAT in two different sittings in the same year. Plus, it hasn't be just ONE person claiming this - it's been MANY claims by people on this board on the CDN boards and it's by people who took the DAT in BOTH settings and noticed that the distributions were not the same.

This is how it works:

If the test is standardized, then the percentile scores are always the same. The only differences between different sittings if there are large sample differences is that the RAW SCORES (ie. it can be either easier or harder to score into the 90%ile) needed to reach a certain percentile will be different. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, lol.

I see, wow that SUCKS.

Well, for the US DAT, in 2006 there were over 50 scores above 24. 2007 there were 6. Basically, much easier test.
This would suck for those who had to take the harder version. Same thing with you guys. They really shouldn't switch up the tests until the old batch of applicants are through the door.

 

[xylem29]

I see, wow that SUCKS.

Well, for the US DAT, in 2006 there were over 50 scores above 24. 2007 there were 6. Basically, much easier test.
This would suck for those who had to take the harder version. Same thing with you guys. They really shouldn't switch up the tests until the old batch of applicants are through the door.

Really eh? Damn, I guess they can't really complain then. So if I'm thinking along the right lines here - it's NOT your relative performance but your raw performance? Like, in 2007 you had to get a higher number of correct answers to score above 24 (so even if you are the 100th percentile, if you didn't get the raw score needed to go above 24, then that means no one will receive 24+) - I always thought it was based on what percentile you score into and that gets converted to the scaled score. The raw scores are used to determine your percentile...

 

[doc3232]

Really eh? Damn, I guess they can't really complain then. So if I'm thinking along the right lines here - it's NOT your relative performance but your raw performance? Like, in 2007 you had to get a higher number of correct answers to score above 24 (so even if you are the 100th percentile, if you didn't get the raw score needed to go above 24, then that means no one will receive 24+) - I always thought it was based on what percentile you score into and that gets converted to the scaled score. The raw scores are used to determine your percentile...

Basically. They either added tough questions or curved tougher. Like you got a 20 instead of 23 for getting 3 questions wrong in 2007.

You should call up ada or whatever to try to undo it.