*Official 2004 NBDE Part I scores*

[GatorDMD]

---

Members do not see this ad.

yeah we have a few 97+ ppl. Even heard of a 99 here! We have an ortho resident from harvard at UF and he got a 98 and he said last year his class average was a 95! Sick huh? i guess i should just be happy with my score and stop worrying about everyone else.

 

[DDSSlave]

I heard 3 people from ucla scored 99. Kinda crazy I thought...

Wow. That's amazing. I'm guessing part of the reason UCLA might have extremely high scores is the incredible amount of emphasis they place on the boards, since they don't rank. A friend ran into a couple of UCLA students while on ortho interviews. Apparently it's not unusual for UCLA students to apply to 30+ schools. At any rate you certainly don't need to apply to 30 schools with a 99. Congratulations to these students. Simply amazing.

 

[podil]

1. De Ball S, Sullivan K, Horine J, Duncan WK, Replogle W.
The relationship of performance on the dental admission test and performance on Part I of the National Board Dental Examinations.
J Dent Educ. 2002 Apr;66(4):478-84. Review.

http://www.jdentaled.org/cgi/reprin...spec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=jde

Check out the correlation between RC and Part 1! 😕 This seems to be the only part of DAT scores that generally correlate well with Part 1 scores. Could this mean more emphasis on the RC section for admissions?

-P

 

[aphistis]

http://www.jdentaled.org/cgi/reprin...spec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=jde

Check out the correlation between RC and Part 1! 😕 This seems to be the only part of DAT scores that generally correlate well with Part 1 scores. Could this mean more emphasis on the RC section for admissions?

-P

I scored a 29 RC; I hope the relationship bears out. 😀

 

[podil]

I scored a 29 RC; I hope the relationship bears out. 😀

😱

Nice job. Unfortunately for everyone with high RC scores the correlation with something like r=0.4 (I dont remember that well or else I would have gotten a 29 on my RC like you). This probably means you still gotta work hard in d-school though you might be better at retaining information from textbooks. 😕 I am sure you will do extremely well though.

-P

 

[DDSSlave]

Nevertheless, interesting study. And a 29 on RC?! Impressive. As others have said, the greatest predictors are doing well in your basic science courses and a strong desire to succeed. I have no doubt with a 29 RC you can do very well on the boards if you want to.

 

[podil]

Nevertheless, interesting study. And a 29 on RC?! Impressive. As others have said, the greatest predictors are doing well in your basic science courses and a strong desire to succeed. I have no doubt with a 29 RC you can do very well on the boards if you want to.

Actually, I skimmed another older article (I wish I remembered which one) that said basic science courses were a stronger indicator of d-school GPA but DAT AA was a stronger indicator of Part 1. This new research is more specific to say RC is the most important section of the DAT for predicting success on Part 1. Yet another article concluded PAT to be a moderate indicator of success in the labs. My recommendation is to check out some of the references in the previously linked article. Interesting stuff.

-P

P.S. Yes, it is sad this is how I'm spending my sat. night, but hey, I just partied the entire month of august, I am entitled to a little break 😎

 

[slysnoodles]

Okay,
The conclusions in this reference, while well written, should be taken with a grain of salt, because generalizability is a BIG issue here. Nowhere in the manuscript do they mention the distribution of scores among their cohort, the amount of time between taking the DAT and the NBDE, etc. Therefore, we don't know if the group studied is an accurate representation of the population of test-takers as a whole.

Also - since we don't know whether the distribution of scores for these 114 individuals is normally distributed about the mean, we cannot be certain that the results of any linear regression are accurate models.

The only way they could have made this convincing was to apply their model to future classes to see if it accurately predicted NBDE Part 1 Scores.

 

[ItsGavinC]

I scored a 29 RC; I hope the relationship bears out. 😀

It certainly didn't work for me. I only missed two RC questions.

 

[aphistis]

😱

Nice job. Unfortunately for everyone with high RC scores the correlation with something like r=0.4 (I dont remember that well or else I would have gotten a 29 on my RC like you). This probably means you still gotta work hard in d-school though you might be better at retaining information from textbooks. 😕 I am sure you will do extremely well though.

-P

I never thought about this till you mentioned it--but come to think of it, I always *have* been much better at learning from books & written materials than I have from lecture. It's something I'd like to be able to do on my own instead of being forced to spend all the time in class, which makes IUSD's Draconian attendance policy one of the few things I don't especially like about the place.

</soapbox> 😉

 

[HBomb]

http://www.jdentaled.org/cgi/reprin...spec=relevance&resourcetype=1&journalcode=jde

Check out the correlation between RC and Part 1! 😕 This seems to be the only part of DAT scores that generally correlate well with Part 1 scores. Could this mean more emphasis on the RC section for admissions?

-P

Now that was an interesting read!!!

 

[predentchick]

It certainly didn't work for me. I only missed two RC questions.

So what does this correlate to regarding a score? Just curious.

 

[podil]

So what does this correlate to regarding a score? Just curious.

Using simplified statistics:

First, standardize your RC score by subtracting the average and deviding by the standard deviation (ex. (29-17)/3=4 assuming 17 is average and 3 the SD) So, your z=4

Then take the Part 1 average and add your z-score times r value times the SD for Part 1 (ex. 70 + (4*0.4*10) = 86)

So, on average someone with your RC score would score an 86 on the Part 1.

This of course assumes the above article is valid and that the averages and SD's I used are correct.

-P

 

[predentchick]

No, I meant that as a particular question for Gavin. What was your RC score if you only missed that few? Sorry for not being clear!

 

[ItsGavinC]

No, I meant that as a particular question for Gavin. What was your RC score if you only missed that few? Sorry for not being clear!

24. Sorry for not divulging in the first place.

 

[UNLV OMS GUNNABE]

Everyone's asking about boards so here's more. Everything you could ever want to know.

 

[blotterspotter]

So if you get a 99, does that mean you got 99% of things correct?! That's just crazy, but impressive.

 

[TiggerJSA]

So if you get a 99, does that mean you got 99% of things correct?! That's just crazy, but impressive.

No, you can get a 99 if you get a 50%, 60%, or 75% of the questions correct theoretically. It all depends on the conversions they calculate. I don't know how they actually calculate your raw score, but those scores are represented by percentile (i.e. raw 95 may be 98th percentile, meaning you did better than 98% of the rest of the field or 85 may be 75th percentile meaning you did better than 75% of the rest of the field, etc.).

 

[Doggie]

No, you can get a 99 if you get a 50%, 60%, or 75% of the questions correct theoretically. It all depends on the conversions they calculate. I don't know how they actually calculate your raw score, but those scores are represented by percentile (i.e. raw 95 may be 98th percentile, meaning you did better than 98% of the rest of the field or 85 may be 75th percentile meaning you did better than 75% of the rest of the field, etc.).

Yeah.....I think they have a published scale for 97 or something. I think you can miss up to 30 questions in certain cestions and still recieve a 90 for that section.