ItsGavinC said:
True, but the PAT doesn't mean much either. I've seen no correlation between the simlab skills of any of my classmates and their PAT scores. I'm willing to bet that schools understand this, although I have no proof of that.
There appears to be a very weak correlation (if any at all) between PAT ability and clinical skills. Several research studies have been performed investigating this question. I don't have copies of them all in front of me, but I found this one:
Gray SA - J Dent Educ - 01-NOV-2002; 66(11): 1241-5
From NIH/NLM MEDLINE
Are traditional cognitive tests useful in predicting clinical success?
"Results showed that the DAT subtest scores played virtually no role with regard to the final clinical grades. Based on this information, the DAT scores were determined to be of no predictive value in clinical achievement."
Furthermore, if you look at:
The predictive utility of computer-simulated exercises for pre-clinical technique performance
SA Gray, LP Deem, JA Sisson, and PL Hammrich
J Dent Educ. 2003 67: 1229-1233.
Gray finds that the strongest correlation exists (r=.388) between clinic performance and computerized dental clinic simulators. Not far behind (r=.381), however, is the Total Science (TS) section of the DAT... meaning, not the PAT (r=.233).
I interpret this study as the following (bear with me
😛). Since a high correlation exists between computer simulation and clinic performance and PAT scores have a comparatively MUCH lower correlation between performance and score, it can be extrapolated that PAT scores do NOT accurately predict clinic success.
You can access the full article (for free) at:
http://www.jdentaled.org/
In the past, I have also found studies investigating certain sections of the DAT upon positive predictive value of performance on NBDE, but PAT is not one of them.
Hope this helps
🙂, but it sure is a shame because I thought the PAT section was fun!
😴 😴 😴
-Mike
