(AAMC) MCATguide 2017

Medical College Admission Test
Using MCAT Data in 2017

Medical Student Selection
MCAT is a program of the

Association of American Medical Colleges
www.aamc.org/mcat

Washington, D.C.
2016 Association of American Medical Colleges. May not be reproduced or distributed without prior written permission.
This is a publication of the Association of American Medical Colleges. The AAMC serves and leads the academic medicine
community to improve the health of all. www.aamc.org.
Contents
Letter to Admissions Officers 1
Interpreting and Using MCAT Scores in Admissions Decision Making 3
How do admissions officers use MCAT scores and other application data in the holistic review of applicants
qualifications? 3
What does the MCAT exam measure? 5
How are MCAT scores calculated and reported? 7
Understanding the Examinees Who Took the New MCAT Exam in 2015 and the Applicants Who Submitted
New Scores in the 2016 Admissions Cycle 11
What are the characteristics of examinees who took the new MCAT exam in 2015? 11
How did examinees prepare for the new MCAT exam? 12
How well did examinees perform on the new MCAT exam? 13
What are the MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of applicants who submitted new scores in the 2016
admissions cycle? 15
Understanding the Predictive Validity of Scores from the MCAT Exam 20
What information is available about the predictive validity of scores from the new MCAT exam? 20
What else will we learn about the impact, use, and predictive validity of the new MCAT exam? 23
References 27
Appendix A. Description of the Foundational Concepts, Scientific Inquiry and Reasoning Skills, and
Information-Processing Skills Tested on the Four Sections of the MCAT Exam 28
Appendix B. MCAT Total and Section Score Percentile Ranks in Effect May 1, 2016April 30, 2017 32
Dear Admissions Officers,
The new version of the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) was introduced in April 2015. This exam was
redesigned for todays medical students and tomorrows doctors. It tests the knowledge and skills that students need
when they enter medical school.
The 2017 admissions cycle is the 2nd year in which you and your admissions committee will consider scores from the
new MCAT exam. When the 2017 admissions cycle opens at the end of June 2016, the vast majority of scores you
will receive from applicants will be from this new version of the MCAT exam, although you are likely to receive some
scores from applicants who took the old exam.
This guide provides admissions officers, medical school faculty members, and others who serve on admissions
committees with information about the design, interpretation, use, and predictive value of the new version of the
MCAT exam. It presents information about how to interpret and use MCAT scores in the context of holistic review. It
also provides data about the new MCAT exam, showing how applicants prepared for and performed on the exam and
preliminary data on the pool of accepted applicants for 2016. It describes early data on the predictive validity of the
new exam and a timeline for when you will learn more information about the MCAT exam and its use and value in
admissions decision making.
In this guide, we refer to the MCAT exam introduced in 2015 as either the MCAT exam or the new MCAT exam,
depending on the context. The MCAT exam that was retired after January 2015 is always referred to as the old exam.
You can download the final guide to the old version of the MCAT exam from the AAMC website (www.aamc.org/
oldmcatguide).
Please dont hesitate to contact us if you have questions. You can reach us by email at mcat2015@aamc.org.
Sincerely,
Cynthia A. Searcy, PhD

Senior Director, MCAT Research and Development
1 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

Interpreting and Using MCAT Scores in Admissions Decision Making
This section answers three questions about the interpretation and use of scores in admissions decision making:
How do admissions officers use MCAT scores and other application data in the holistic review of applicants qualifications?
What does the MCAT exam measure?
How are MCAT scores calculated and reported?
How do admissions officers use MCAT scores and other application data in the holistic
review of applicants qualifications?
Applicants provide admissions committees with rich information about their experiences, attributes, and academic
backgrounds through their applications, personal statements, and interviews. Letter writers also provide information
about applicants academic and personal competencies. Your institutional mission, goals, and priorities provide a
framework for evaluating applicants with this rich and varied information in holistic ways and for admitting a class of
capable, caring students who bring diverse interests, talents, and experiences to your institution.
Holistic review practices provide the foundation for selecting applicants with the academic
and personal competencies that future physicians need.
Holistic review practices provide the foundation for using the MCAT exam in admissions decision making. It is
important to remember the following best practices for considering data about academic preparation in the context
of all the information collected during the admissions process.
You should carefully consider the rich and assorted data that applicants provide, weighing data about applicants
experiences, attributes, and academic preparation in ways that help you meet your institutions goals.
You should triangulate score information from the MCAT exam with information about applicants course
completion, grades, grade trends, institutional selectivity, research experience, and other academic indicators. You
should look for consistencies and inconsistencies in the stories these data tell.
For MCAT scores in particular, you should consider the precision with which total and section scores measure
applicants academic preparation when making decisions about whom to interview and accept. Scores that are
close together are not meaningfully different.
Scores from the MCAT exam should not outweigh other application data in deciding which applicants
will get secondary invitations, interview invitations, or acceptance offers.
The procedures that admissions officers from different medical schools use to review the data on applicants qualifications
differ in ways that reflect schools unique educational missions and goals and the sizes of their applicant pools. To learn
more about the holistic review of applicants qualifications, the AAMC has surveyed admissions officers about the relative
importance of different academic, experiential, demographic, and personal attribute data in making admissions decisions
(e.g., Mitchell et al. 1994; Monroe et al. 2013; Admissions Initiative 2013; AAMC and SRA International, Inc., 2016).
Table 1 summarizes the results of the most recent survey, conducted in 2015, which suggests that admissions officers
do follow these best practices. The survey asked admissions officers about the importance of academic metrics,
experiences, demographics, and other sources of applicant information at each phase of the admissions process. The
table highlights the importance of different types of data in admissions decision making. Previous surveys on the use

Using MCAT Data in Medical Student Selection 2017
and importance of data used to make admissions decisions (for example, in 2008 and 2013) have supported findings
from the 2015 survey by consistently showing that experiences, academic metrics, demographics, and attributes all
weigh heavily in decisions to offer acceptances.
Table 1. Mean Importance Ratings of Academic, Experiential, Demographic, and Interview Data Used by Admissions
Committees for Making Decisions about Which Applicants Receive Interview Invitations and Acceptance Offers (N=130)1
Mean Academic Metrics Experiences Demographics Other Data

Importance
Ratings2
Highest GPA: cumulative Community U.S. citizenship/permanent Interview results4
Importance science/math service/volunteer: residency (Public)3
Ratings
(3.0) MCAT total score medical/clinical State residency (Public)3
GPA: grade trend Community Rural/urban underserved
GPA: cumulative service/volunteer: not background
total medical/clinical
GPA: cumulative Physician
total from post- shadowing/clinical
baccalaureate pre- observation
medical program Leadership
MCAT total score
trend
Completion of
pre-medical course
requirements
Medium Completion of Paid employment: Race/ethnicity
Importance
Ratings challenging upper-level medical/clinical U.S. citizenship/permanent
(2.5 and science courses Research/lab residency (Private)3
<3.0) GPA: cumulative non- Other extracurricular Parental
science/math activities education/occupation/
Military service socioeconomic status
(SES)
Lowest Degree from graduate or Teaching/tutoring/ First-generation immigrant
Importance
Ratings professional program teaching assistant status
(<2.5) Completion of Paid employment: Fluency in multiple languages
challenging non- not medical/clinical Gender
science courses Intercollegiate English language learners
Selectivity of athletics State residency (Private)3
undergraduate Honors, awards, Legacy status
institution(s) recognition Community college
Undergraduate Conferences attendance
major attended, Age
presentations,
posters,
publications
1The
2015 survey asked, How important were the following data about academic preparation, experiences, attributes/personal competencies,
biographic/demographic characteristics, and interview results in identifying the applicants to [interview, offer an acceptance]?
2Importance
was rated on a four-point scale ranging from 1 to 4 (Not Important, Somewhat Important, Important, and Very Important, respectively).
For each variable, we computed an overall mean importance rating based on admissions officers ratings of importance for making decisions about whom to
interview and whom to accept (the mean importance rating for the interview variable is the exception to this rule because interview data were not available
until applicants were invited to interview). We chose to classify variables using overall mean importance ratings because their mean importance ratings were
similar for the interview and the acceptance phases. Variables are ordered by overall mean importance rating.
3Overall
mean importance ratings for public and private institutions were significantly different from one another.
Only available at the admissions stage where admissions committees make a decision to offer an acceptance.
4

National-level data on acceptance rates for applicants who took previous versions of the MCAT exam reinforce the
messages the survey data provide. Each year, some applicants with high MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs are
rejected by all of the medical schools to which they applied. In contrast, other applicants with more modest MCAT scores
and undergraduate GPAs are accepted by at least one medical school. These data suggest that although undergraduate
GPAs and MCAT scores are important factors in admissions, they are not the sole determinants of admissions decisions
(for data about acceptance rates from the 20122014 admissions cycles for applicants with different undergraduate GPAs
and scores on the old MCAT exam, see the final guide for the old MCAT exam at www.aamc.org/oldmcatguide).
Later in this guide (page 17), you will see the MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of 2016 applicants who took the
new exam, along with preliminary data on the pool of accepted applicants with new scores. As they did for the old
exam, these data show that admissions committees admit applicants with a wide range of MCAT scores and GPAs,
weighing evidence of academic preparation with applicants experiences and attributes in ways that help them meet
their goals. Consideration of these data and adherence to these best practices will help your admissions committee
construct a class that meets the academic, clinical, service, and research missions of your medical school.
What does the MCAT exam measure?

The MCAT exam is designed to help medical school admissions committees select students who are academically
prepared for medical school and to predict students academic performance in the preclerkship years, as well as the
academic portions of students work in the clerkship years. The blueprints for the exam are aligned with concepts that
medical school faculty, residents, and medical students recently rated as important to entering students success. They
are organized around the academic competencies described by seminal reports such as the Scientific Foundations for
Future Physicians (www.aamc.org/scientificfoundations) and the Behavioral and Social Science Foundations for Future
Physicians (www.aamc.org/socialsciencefoundations). The quantitative and qualitative research evidence that supports
the definition and development of the MCAT exam is strong (Schwartzstein et al. 2013).
The MCAT exam tests the foundational concepts and reasoning skills needed to be ready for todays medical school.
This section of the guide provides information about the concepts and reasoning skills tested on the MCAT exam. The
MCAT exam has four sections:
1. Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems

2. Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems
3. Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior
4. Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills
The two natural sciences and the behavioral and social sciences sections of the MCAT exam test 10 foundational concepts
and four scientific inquiry and reasoning skills that are foundational for learning in medical school. These sections ask test
takers to combine their knowledge of concepts from courses in first-semester biochemistry, psychology, and sociology
(along with courses in biology, chemistry, and physics) with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills to solve problems
presented in passages and test questions. As shown in Figure 1, MCAT questions test foundational concepts and scientific
reasoning skills together. The resulting scores provide information about applicants readiness to learn in medical school.
The structure of the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section is different from the structure of the other sections
of the exam. It tests how well test takers comprehend, analyze, and evaluate what they read, draw inferences from
text, and apply arguments to new ideas and situations. It asks applicants to process information, draw conclusions,
and solve problems using information that is presented in passages drawn from a diverse set of disciplines in the
humanities and social sciences. However, the questions on this section do not rely on specific background knowledge
in the humanities and social sciences. Test takers get all the information they need to answer the questions in the
accompanying passages or in the questions themselves.
Appendix A provides more detailed descriptions of the concepts and reasoning skills tested by each of the four
sections of the exam.

Figure 1. Foundational concepts and scientific inquiry and reasoning skills tested on the MCAT exam.
Foundational Concepts Tested on the MCAT Exam
Chemical and Physical

Biological and Biochemical Foundations of
Foundations of Biological Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior
Living Systems
Systems
Foundational Foundational Foundational Foundational Foundational Foundational Foundational Foundational Foundational Foundational
Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Concept 5 Concept 6 Concept 7 Concept 8 Concept 9 Concept 10
Biomolecules Highly Complex Complex living The principles Biological, Biological, Psychological, Cultural Social
have unique organized systems of organisms that govern psychological, psychological, sociocultural, and social stratification
properties that assemblies of tissues and transport chemical and and and biological differences and access
determine how molecules, organs sense materials, interactions sociocultural sociocultural factors influence well- to resources
they contribute cells, and the internal sense their and reactions factors factors influence the being. influence well-
to the structure organs interact and external environment, form the basis influence the influence way we think being.
and function of to carry out environments process signals, for a broader ways that behavior about ourselves
cells and how the functions of multicellular and respond to understanding individuals and behavior and others.
they participate of living organisms, changes using of the perceive, think change.
in the processes organisms. and through processes that molecular about, and
necessary to integrated can be under- dynamics of react to the
sustain life. functioning, stood in terms living systems. world.
maintain a of physical
stable internal principles.
environment
6
within an
ever-changing
external
environment.
MCAT questions ask test takers to solve problems by using the following scientific inquiry and reasoning skills:
1. Knowledge of Scientific Concepts and Principles

Demonstrating understanding of scientific concepts and principles
Identifying the relationships between closely related concepts
2. Scientific Reasoning and Problem Solving

Reasoning about scientific principles, theories, and models
Analyzing and evaluating scientific explanations and predictions
3. Reasoning about the Design and Execution of Research

Demonstrating understanding of important components of scientific research
Reasoning about ethical issues in research
4. Data-Based and Statistical Reasoning

Interpreting patterns in data presented in tables, figures, and graphs
Reasoning about data and drawing conclusions from them
Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

How are MCAT scores calculated and reported?

This section of the guide provides the information needed to interpret scores from the MCAT exam. It contains
information about the score scales, percentile ranks, confidence bands, and score profiles that are used to make
decisions about whom to interview and accept into medical school.
The section and total score scales are centered on memorable numbers. The four section scores are centered at 125
and range from 118 to 132. Scores from the four sections are summed to produce a total score centered at 500 and
ranging from 472 to 528.
The new MCAT scores draw attention to the center of the scales and the top half of the distributions to encourage
admissions committees to consider applicants with a wider range of scores than they have in the past.
Research on the old exam suggests that the students who enter medical school with scores at the center of the scale
succeed; they graduate in four or five years and pass their licensing exams on the first try (Dunleavy et al. 2013). If
history is a guide, applicants with a wide range of scores on the new MCAT exam who are admitted to medical school
will succeed.
The MCAT score report presents the total and section scores, confidence bands, and score profiles. It also provides the
percentile ranks associated with the total and section scores so that you can see how an applicants scores compare
to the scores of other examinees who took the exam. An example score report is shown in Figure 2. You can find an
interactive version of this score report, with videos describing the concepts and reasoning skills tested by the new
exam and downloadable fact sheets describing the scores, confidence bands, percentile ranks, and score profile, at
www.aamc.org/mcatscorereport.
Figure 2. Example score report.

The sections below provide more details about how you can use all of the information presented in a score report to
help interpret an examinees preparation for medical school. It answers the following three questions:
How accurate are examinees MCAT scores, and how should they be interpreted?
How can score profiles help triangulate MCAT scores with other information about academic preparation?
How can percentile ranks help with the interpretation of applicants MCAT scores?
How accurate are examinees MCAT scores, and how should they be interpreted?
Like other measurements, MCAT scores are imperfect measures of examinees true levels of preparation. They are not
perfectly precise. Examinees scores can be dampened by factors such as fatigue, test anxiety, and less-than-optimal
test room conditions, or they can be boosted by recent exposure to some of the tested topics.
Confidence bands describe the precision of MCAT total and section scores. They show the ranges in which examinees
true scores probably lie. It is important to include information about score precision in score reports and to consider
this precision when using scores for decision making. The MCAT score reports show confidence bands both
numerically and graphically.
MCAT total scores are reported with a confidence band of plus or minus two points, and MCAT section scores are
reported with confidence bands of plus or minus one point. Figure 3 shows a total score of 501 and its confidence
band, which ranges from 499 to 503. The diamond shape shows the confidence band graphically and indicates that
the reported score is the best estimate of an applicants true score. The reported score is in the center of the diamond,
where the diamond is the tallest and the shading is the darkest.
Confidence bands remind admissions committee members not to overemphasize small differences in scores.
Figure 3. Example MCAT total score, confidence band, and percentile rank.
Confidence Percentile
Score
Band Rank of Score
MCAT
501 499 503 56%
Total Score
When comparing two applicants scores, it is important to consider how much their confidence bands overlap. Scores
that are close together have confidence bands that overlap. The greater the overlap in confidence bands, the less
meaningful are the differences between the scores.

Figure 4 displays four pairs of MCAT total scores with confidence bands that differ in their degree of overlap. The
scores in the top pair, 504 versus 503, are only one point apart on the total score scale. The figure shows that the
confidence bands for these scores overlap on four score points502, 503, 504, and 505.
In comparison, the scores in the bottom pair, 504 versus 500, are four points apart on the MCAT total score scale and
have confidence bands that only overlap on one point on the total score scale502indicating that these scores are
less comparable to each other than the first pair.
Figure 4. Illustration of pairs of MCAT total scores and their overlapping confidence bands.
Applicants'
Scores
504 vs 503
504 vs 502
504 vs 501
504 vs 500
498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506
How can percentile ranks help with the interpretation of applicants MCAT scores?
MCAT score reports provide percentile ranksone for each section score and one for the total score. The percentile
ranks show the percentages of test takers who received the same or lower scores on the exam as the applicant. They
show how the scores of your applicants compare to the scores of everyone who sat for the exam.
Percentile ranks allow you to compare the performance of your applicants to others who took the exam.
For example, the MCAT total score in Figure 3 is 501. It has a percentile rank of 56%. This means that 56% of MCAT
scores were equal to or less than 501.
Every year on May 1, the percentile ranks for the MCAT exam will be updated using data from one or more previous
years. These annual updates will ensure that the percentile ranks reflect current and stable information about
applicants scores. This means that changes in percentile ranks from one year to another reflect meaningful changes in
examinees scores, rather than year-to-year fluctuations. Updating percentile ranks is consistent with industry practice.
Appendix B shows the MCAT total and section score percentile ranks that will be in effect May 1, 2016April 30,
2017. These percentile ranks are based on the scores of everyone who tested in 2015. They are very similar to the
percentile ranks that were in use from April 2015 through April 2016, during your 2016 admissions cycle. The original
percentile ranks were based on the scores of early examinees in 2015, but those early scores were weighted to
represent the scores of examinees in a typical MCAT year. Because this weighting created percentile ranks for a typical
testing year, the original and updated percentile ranks are very similar.

How can score profiles help triangulate MCAT scores with other information about academic preparation?
Score profiles highlight applicants strengths and weaknesses across the four sections of the exam through reported
scores for each section. Figure 5 illustrates the score profile that appears in the MCAT score report. Applicants
strengths and weaknesses on the exam can be considered along with other information about applicants academic
preparation (e.g., course taking and grades) and in relation to your institutions missions and goals.
Applicants strengths and weaknesses on the exam can be considered along with other information about applicants
academic preparation (e.g., course taking and grades) and in relation to your institutions missions and goals.
Figure 5. Illustration of the score profile in the MCAT score report.
MCAT Score Profile
Section Score Profile1
118 125 132

Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems
118 125 132

Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills
118 125 132

Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems
118 125 132

Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior
1
For the four sections, nonoverlapping confidence bands show a test takers likely strengths and weaknesses. Overlapping confidence bands
suggest that there are not meaningful differences in performance between sections.

Understanding the Examinees Who Took the New MCAT Exam in 2015 and
the Applicants Who Submitted New Scores in the 2016 Admissions Cycle
This section answers four questions about the examinees who sat for the new MCAT exam in 2015 and the applicants
who submitted new scores in the 2016 admissions cycle:
What are the characteristics of examinees who took the new MCAT exam in 2015?
How did examinees prepare for the new MCAT exam?
How did examinees perform on the new MCAT exam?
What are the MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of applicants who submitted new scores in the 2016
admissions cycle?
What are the characteristics of examinees who took the new MCAT exam in 2015?
Almost 60,000 examinees took the new exam in 2015. See Figure 6 for data about the characteristics and experiences
of these examinees. Their characteristics were similar to those of previous test takers. Before the introduction of this
exam, there was concern that some groups of examinees would be more reticent than others to take the new exam.
But examinees from various backgrounds took the new exam in the same proportions as in previous years.
The characteristics and experiences of examinees who tested in 2015 were similar to those testing in previous years.
Figure 6. Percentage of examinees taking the new MCAT exam by gender, race/ethnicity, fee assistance status, testing
condition, and repeater status (N=59,996).

How did examinees prepare for the new MCAT exam?

The new MCAT exam, introduced in 2015, tests concepts from first-semester biochemistry, psychology, and sociology
courses and courses in biology, chemistry, and physics and asks examinees to demonstrate that they can reason about
research and data.
Data about the courses the 2015 examinees took show how they prepared in these areas (see Figure 7). As in the
past, almost all examinees took biology, chemistry, and physics courses. Most 2015 examinees also took courses in
biochemistry, psychology, and statistics before testing; many took courses in sociology and research methods. The
numbers of examinees taking courses in biochemistry, psychology, sociology, and statistics were higher than in the past.
Before the introduction of the new MCAT exam, there was concern that more examinees than in the past would
take test preparation courses to get ready for the new MCAT exam. However, the percentages of examinees who
took commercial or university- or medical-school-based preparation courses before sitting for the new exam in 2015
were similar to the percentages who took preparation courses in the past, with about half of the examinees taking
preparation courses for the redesigned test.
More examinees took biochemistry, psychology, sociology, and statistics courses than in the past.
In addition to taking courses, examinees prepared for the new MCAT exam in a variety of other ways. Almost 60%
of those who responded to the AAMCs Post-MCAT Questionnaire reported using the new Khan Academy MCAT
collection, which includes free, online, video-based lessons and test questions covering concepts and reasoning skills
tested on the new MCAT exam. Many respondents also reported reading on their own, taking online courses, or
volunteering or working in research labs or other settings that provided exposure to topics tested on the MCAT exam.
(The Post-MCAT Questionnaire 2015 Report is available at www.aamc.org/data/pmq.)
Figure 7. Percentages of examinees taking the new MCAT exam who completed college coursework in the natural,
behavioral, and social sciences or MCAT preparation courses (N=59,996).1

How well did examinees perform on the new MCAT exam?

This section describes the scores obtained by examinees who tested from April through September 2015. Figure 8
shows the distribution of MCAT total scores from exams administered during this time frame. The mean MCAT total
score was 500, and the standard deviation was 10.
Figure 8. Distribution of new MCAT total scores for exams administered from April through September, 2015
(N=64,504).1

Figure 9 shows the distributions of new MCAT total scores for exams administered in 2015 for examinees from different
sociodemographic groups. It uses box-and-whisker plots to show the median (50th percentile) score, along with 10th,
25th, 75th, and 90th percentile scores. The 10th and 90th percentile scores are shown by the ends of the whiskers,
the 25th and 75th percentile scores are shown by the box (the left edge of each box shows the 25th percentile score,
and the right edge shows the 75th percentile score), and the median is shown by the vertical bar inside each box. For
example, for female examinees, the 10th, 25th, median, 75th, and 90th percentile scores were 485, 491, 498, 506, and
512, respectively. The mean MCAT total score for each group appears in parentheses by the group label.
Comparing these box-and-whisker plots for examinees from different sociodemographic groups shows the overlap
in scores between groupsthe boxes span similar, wide ranges of scores. However, despite efforts made to address
fairness in the design and development of the new exam, the median scores differ by group, and these differences are
similar to differences on the old exam.
Males scored slightly higher than the females, majority examinees scored higher than examinees from groups
underrepresented in medicine, and examinees who did not receive fee assistance scored slightly higher than those
who did.1
Figure 9. New MCAT total scores for 2015 examinees overall and by gender, race/ethnicity, fee assistance status,
testing condition, and repeater status (N = 64,504).1
1. The similarities and differences in these data are similar to those reported in the literature for the MCAT exam and other admissions tests (Davis
et al. 2013; Roth et al. 2001; Sackett and Shen 2010). Recent research on the old version of the MCAT exam suggests that these differences in
MCAT total scores for racial/ethnic minorities do not reflect test bias (Davis et al. 2013).

The box-and-whisker plots also summarize scores for examinees who took the new exam in 2015 under standard
testing conditions and those who tested under nonstandard conditions. The plots also summarize scores for first-time
examinees and repeaters who took the new exam. The differences between nonrepeaters and repeaters on the new
exam are similar to differences on the old exam.
None of the many individuals who helped design and develop the new exam sought to replicate the differences
seen on the old exam. Concerns about fairness played a critical role in developing the new exam blueprints and,
particularly, in ensuring that the concepts and skills tested on the new exam are taught widely. The designers also
addressed fairness through increased testing time, providing applicants with more working time per question than
they had on the old exam. The new MCAT exam also balances testing in the natural sciences with testing in the
behavioral and social sciences and critical analysis and reasoning. The hope is that this balance will help diversify the
physician workforce by making the exam and medical school application more attractive to individuals from more
varied academic and demographic backgrounds. Finally, the designers of the test recommended that ample free
and low-cost preparation materials be made available so that all aspiring physicians have access to resources and
information needed to prepare for the exam.
As described in the last section of this guide (page 23), a diverse group of medical schools, in collaboration with two
pre-health advisors and the AAMC, formed a committee to evaluate the validity of the MCAT exam. Research has
already begun to examine the coursework, test preparation courses, materials, and other strategies that examinees
use when preparing for the MCAT exam. This committee is studying trends and looking for points of leverage to
narrow the gaps in opportunities for individuals from all backgrounds, especially those who have been historically
disadvantaged, to prepare for the MCAT exam.
The MCAT Validity Committee is looking for points of leverage that narrow the gaps in access to resources and
information needed to prepare for the MCAT exam.
What are the MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs of applicants who submitted new
scores in the 2016 admissions cycle?
This section of the guide describes data from the 2016 admissions cycle, including MCAT scores and undergraduate
GPAs for applicants who sat for the new MCAT exam. It also describes preliminary acceptance data for these
applicants. Together, these data provide a view of applicants decisions to apply to medical schools with scores from
the new exam and admissions committees decisions about acceptance offers. The information is designed to help
you think about your applicants in the 2017 admissions cycle, most of whom will apply with scores from the new
MCAT exam.
During the development of this guide, the 2016 admissions cycle was still in progress. While the pool of applicants in
this cycle (and their MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs) was nearly final, the pool of applicants with acceptance
offers was not. About 80% of the projected pool of accepted applicants had already received one or more
acceptances (the pool of accepted applicants will be finalized by fall 2016). Final data from this admissions cycle will
be reported at the end of this calendar year in the traditional grid format that shows acceptance rates for different
ranges of MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs.

2016 applicants with scores from the new MCAT exam
In the 2016 admissions cycle, there were about 52,600 applicants, and slightly more than 50% of them applied with
scores from the new MCAT exam. Figure 10 uses box-and-whisker plots to show the distribution of new MCAT scores
for all 2015 examinees and 2016 applicants who submitted scores from the new MCAT exam. The median MCAT
total score for 2015 examinees was 500, and for 2016 applicants who submitted new scores, it was 502. Figure 10
shows that the 2016 applicants who took the new MCAT exam applied with a wide range of MCAT scores.
Figure 10. New MCAT total scores for 2015 examinees and 2016 applicants who submitted scores from the new MCAT exam.
Table 2 shows the MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs for the pool of 2016 applicants who took the new
MCAT exam. The columns show the ranges of MCAT total scores, and the rows show the ranges of undergraduate
GPAs. The rightmost column of the table shows the applicants who applied with GPAs in each range, across all MCAT
scores. For example, 24% of the applicants who submitted scores from the new exam applied with undergraduate
GPAs between 3.60 and 3.79.
Similarly, the bottom row of the table shows the applicants who applied with MCAT total scores in each range, across
all undergraduate GPAs. For example, 16% of the applicants who submitted scores from the new exam applied with
MCAT total scores between 498 and 501.
In each cell, the bolded percentage represents the percentage of applicants (out of the 27,476 2016 applicants who
sat for the new exam) who applied with MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs in these ranges. The number
below each percentage indicates the number of applicants represented in that percentage. For example, 4% of the
applicant pool (1,094 of 27,476 applicants) who took the new exam applied with GPAs ranging from 3.80 to 4.00
and MCAT total scores ranging from 502 to 505.

The data in Table 2 and in Figure 10 tell a consistent story: individuals with a wide range of undergraduate GPAs and
MCAT scores applied in the 2016 admissions cycle.
2016 applicants who took the new exam applied with a wide range of MCAT scores.
Table 2. For 2016 Applicants with Scores from the New MCAT Exam, the Percentage and Number of Applicants by
MCAT Total Score and Undergraduate GPA Range
MCAT Total
MCAT Total
GPA Total 472485 486489 490493 494497 498501 502505 506509 510513 514517 518528 All
GPA Total 472485 486489 490493 494497 498501 502505 506509 510513 514517 518528 All
3.804.00 <1% <1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 24%
3.804.00 <1% <1% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 24%
43
43 102
102 244
244 455
455 807
807 1,094
1,094 1,251
1,251 1,102
1,102 813
813 651
651 6,562
6,562
3.603.79 <1%
<1% 1% 1% 2%2% 3%3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 24% 24%
3.603.79
130
130 233233 452452 725725 1,050
1,050 1,2131,213 1,213 1,213 860 860 503 503 265 265 6,644 6,644
3.403.59
3.403.59 1%
1% 1% 1% 2%2% 3%3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% <1% <1% 20% 20%
225
225 302302 547547 776776 1,013
1,013 973 973 778 778 536 536 271 271 124 124 5,545 5,545
3.203.39
3.203.39 1%
1% 1% 1% 2%2% 2%2% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 14% 14%
258
258 291291 470470 598598 694 694 612 612 438 438 271 271 133 133 55 55 3,820 3,820
3.003.19
3.003.19 1%
1% 1% 1% 1%1% 1%1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 9% 9%
264
264 257257 329329 361361 370 370 321 321 230 230 132 132 54 54 19 19 2,337 2,337
2.802.99
2.802.99 1%
1% 1% 1% 1%1% 1%1% 1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% -- -- 5% 5%
200
200 167167 217217 202202 201 201 136 136 81 81 40 40 22 22 1,271 1,271
2.602.79
2.602.79 1%
1% <1%<1% <1%<1% <1%<1% <1%<1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% -- -- 3% 3%
153
153 103103 108108 114114 77 77 54 54 41 41 23 23 10 10 689 689
2.402.59 <1%
<1% <1%<1% <1%<1% <1%<1% <1%<1% <1% <1% <1% <1% -- -- -- -- -- -- 1% 1%
2.402.59
101 50 61 48 38 16 19 345
101 50 61 48 38 16 19 345
2.202.39 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% -- -- -- 1%
2.202.39 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% -- -- -- 1%
64 19 17 20 10 12 156
64 19 17 20 10 12 156
2.002.19 <1% <1% <1% -- -- -- -- -- -- <1%
2.002.19 <1%
32 12<1% 10<1% -- -- -- -- -- -- 71 <1%
32
<1% -- 12 -- 10 -- -- -- -- -- <1% 71
1.471.99
1.471.99 <1%
19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 34 <1%
All 19
5% 6% 9% 12% 16% 16% 15% 11% 7% 4% 100% 34
All 5%
1,490 6%
1,542 9%
2,457 12%
3,310 16%
4,265 4,43416% 4,062 15% 2,978 11% 1,809 7% 1,129 4% 27,476 100%
Notes: 1,490 1,542 2,457 3,310 4,265 4,434 4,062 2,978 1,809 1,129 27,476
Notes:
The percentages show the numbers of applicants with new MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs in given ranges divided by the number of
applicants
The percentages
with newshow
scores.the numbers of applicants with new MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs in given ranges divided by the number of
applicants
Blue shading = 46%
with of the applicants reported MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs in this range; green shading = 13% of the
new scores.
applicants reported
Blue shading = 46%MCAT totalapplicants
of the scores andreported
undergraduate
MCAT GPAs in this range.
total scores and undergraduate GPAs in this range; green shading = 13% of the
applicants
Dashes = cells with fewer
reported MCAT than 10scores
total observations; blank cells = cells
and undergraduate GPAs within 0this
observations.
range.
For students
Dashes whowith
= cells tookfewer
the new
than MCAT exam multipleblank
10 observations; times,cells
the most
= cellsrecent
with MCAT total score in the 2016 application cycle was used in this analysis.
0 observations.
For students who took the new MCAT exam multiple times, the most recent MCAT total score in the 2016 application cycle was used in this analysis.
The data show that more examinees who sat for the new exam might have applied with modest scores than
examinees did in the past. Even though scores from the new and old exams are not directly comparable, because the
exams test different things, we compared the percentage of applicants with scores in the lower half of the old score
scale to the percentage of 2016 applicants with scores in the lower half of the new scale. Specifically, we computed
the percentage of 2016 applicants who took the new exam and obtained a score at or below 500 (the median score
for 2015 examinees), and we did the same for last years applicants who obtained a score at or below 26 (the median
score for the old exam in recent testing years). More 2016 applicants who took the new exam applied with scores at
or below the median than 2015 applicants who took the old exam: 44% and 33%, respectively.
It is possible that prospective applicants saw this transition year as an opportunity. In the 2016 cycle, both applicants
and admissions committees were starting over with the MCAT exam. Admissions committees were establishing new
conventions for weighing MCAT scores in relation to other application data, and prospective applicants were deciding
if and where to apply to medical schoolwith less information than before about the score ranges that would be
competitive. In this year when everyone was starting over to attach new meaning to MCAT scores, applicants may
have reasoned that admissions committees would weigh coursework, undergraduate GPAs, and other information

about academic preparation more heavily than MCAT scores. It is also possible that applicants responded to the
AAMCs guidance to medical school admissions committees to use these new scores flexibly to allow time to figure
out what the score ranges mean in terms of success in medical school.
Acceptance data for the 2016 applicants with scores from the new MCAT exam
This section shows preliminary information about the pool of 2016 applicants with scores from the new exam
who received one or more acceptances. Although the 2016 admissions cycle was in progress at the time this guide
was prepared, about 80% of the projected pool of accepted applicants had been identified. Though preliminary,
the data presented here suggest that admissions committees used strategies for weighing new MCAT scores and
undergraduate GPAs that were largely consistent with their strategies for weighing scores from the old MCAT exam.
Table 3 shows the MCAT total scores and undergraduate GPAs for the preliminary pool of applicants with scores from
the new MCAT exam who received one or more acceptances as of April 12, 2016. Almost 7,000 applicants with new
scores had received one or more acceptance offers by this date. The shading in the table shows the ranges of MCAT
scores and undergraduate GPAs of the applicants accepted by this date. It shows these data with shading (rather than
numeric data) because the 2016 admissions cycle is not yet complete. Orange shading shows MCAT score and GPA
ranges that include 7% to 10% of the accepted pool; blue shading shows MCAT score and GPA ranges that include
4% to 6% of the accepted pool; and green shading shows MCAT score and GPA ranges that include 1% to 3% of
the accepted pool.
Table 3. Preliminary Data on the Pool of 2016 Applicants with Scores from the New MCAT Exam
Who Received One or More Acceptances
MCAT Total
MCAT Total
GPA Total 472485 486489 490493 494497 498501 502505 506509 510513 514517 518528 All
GPA Total 472485 486489 490493 494497 498501 502505 506509
3.804.00 1% 3% 6% 10% 510513
10% 514517
9% 5185288% All 47%
3.804.00 1%76 3% 208 6% 445 10% 681 10% 727 9% 610 8% 530 47% 3,305
76 1% 2083% 445 4% 681 6% 727 7% 610 5% 530 3% 3,305 29%
3.603.79
3.603.79 1% 3% 4% 6% 7% 5% 3% 29%
73 178 313 443 460 327 188 1,996
73 178 313 443 460 327 188 1,996
3.403.59 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 14%
3.403.59 1% 2% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 14%
46 46 133133 190 190 209 209 213 213 133 133 72 72 1,009 1,009
3.203.39 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 6% 6%
3.203.39
63 63 86 86 87 87 68 68 55 55 424 424
3.003.19
3.003.19 1% 1% 2% 2%
` ` 159 159
2.802.99
2.802.99 1% 1%
55 55
2.602.79
2.602.79 <1% <1%
25 25
2.402.59
2.402.59 <1% <1%
10 10
2.202.39
2.202.39 -- --
2.002.19 -- --
2.002.19
1.471.99
1.471.99
All -- -- <1% 4% 9% 16% 21% 22% 16% 12% 100%
All -- -- 61<1% 2464% 6309% 16%
1,099 1,46321% 1,507 22% 1,147 16% 825 12% 6,985 100%
Notes: 61 246 630 1,099 1,463 1,507 1,147 825 6,985
Notes:
The percentages in the right-most column and bottom row show the numbers of accepted applicants with new MCAT total scores and undergraduate
The
GPAs percentages in the
in given ranges right-most
divided by thecolumn
numberand bottom row
of applicants withshow the numbers
new scores of accepted
who received applicants
at least with new MCAT total scores and undergraduate
one acceptance.
GPAs
Orange inshading
given ranges
= 710%divided
of theby the numberwere
acceptances of applicants with newinscores
given to applicants whoand
this GPA received at least
MCAT total one
score acceptance.
range; blue shading = 46% of the
Orange shading
acceptances were=given
710% of the acceptances
to applicants in this GPAwere
and given
MCATto applicants
total in this
score range; GPAshading
green and MCAT= 13%total
ofscore range; bluewere
the acceptances shading
given=to46% of the
applicants
acceptances
in this GPA and were given
MCAT to score
total applicants
range.in this GPA and MCAT total score range; green shading = 13% of the acceptances were given to applicants
inInthis
the rightmost
GPA and column and bottom
MCAT total row of the table, dashes = cells with fewer than 10 observations; blank cells = cells with 0 observations.
score range.
In
Forthestudents whocolumn
rightmost took theand
newbottom
MCAT rowexam ofmultiple times,
the table, the most
dashes recent
= cells withMCAT
fewer total
thanscore in the 2016 application
10 observations; blank cellscycle waswith
= cells used0 in this analysis.
observations.
For students who took the new MCAT exam multiple times, the most recent MCAT total score in the 2016 application cycle was used in this analysis.

We investigated whether admissions committees were more likely to offer acceptances to applicants with modest
scores on the new exam than they had in the past to applicants with modest scores on the old exam. This comparison
is imperfect because data for previous admissions cycles are complete, whereas the data for the 2016 admissions cycle
are not. Nonetheless, we saw value in seeking preliminary data on how acceptance decisions for applicants with new
MCAT scores compare with decisions from previous years because so much of this years cycle was complete at the time
this guide was prepared.
We tried to answer this question by comparing the percentage of 2016 applicants who were accepted with scores
at or below the median on the new test with the percentage of 2015 applicants who were accepted with scores at
or below the median on the old test. The percentages from the 2016 admissions cycle as of April 12, 2016, are very
similar to those from the complete 2015 admissions cycle: 11% vs. 10%, respectively.
Again, it is important to remember that this comparison is imperfect because the acceptance data for the 2016
applicants are not yet complete, whereas the acceptance decisions for the 2015 applicants are final. While the data
about the pool of accepted applicants may change in the remainder of the 2016 admissions cycle, shifts in the
combinations of MCAT scores and undergraduate GPAs are likely to be modest given the number of places left to fill.
The 2016 pool of accepted applicants who sat for the new exam may be similar to those in previous years because
of the guidance given to admissions committees to use percentile ranks to interpret scores from the new exam.
Resources such as the interactive score report at www.aamc.org/mcatscorereport provided guidance on using
percentile ranks to understand how an applicants score compared to others who took the new exam. Admissions
committees were given guidance to use percentile ranks for the old MCAT exam to derive minimum MCAT total
score thresholds for the new exam. They were encouraged to lower their thresholds by 10 percentage points or so, a
strategy that worked for some schools but may not have worked for all. Each medical school established conventions
that balanced applicant pool size, applicant characteristics, and tolerance for ambiguity, which may have resulted in
decisions that looked, at a national level, similar to decisions made in previous years.

Understanding the Predictive Validity of Scores from the MCAT Exam
This section answers two questions about the validity of scores from the new MCAT exam:
What information is available about the predictive validity of scores from the new MCAT exam?
What else will we learn about the impact, use, and predictive validity of the new MCAT exam?
What information is available about the predictive validity of scores from

the new MCAT exam?
Currently, predictive validity data are available for the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section
of the new MCAT exam. Beginning in 2013, researchers from 11 medical schools partnered with the AAMC to examine the
predictive validity of scores from this section. This is the section of the new exam that is most different from the old one,
which is why it was selected for early study. The researchers examined the extent to which scores from this section predict
students academic performance in courses and clerkships and on exams that draw on the behavioral and social sciences.
This type of predictive validity data is essential for helping admissions committees, faculty, and other stakeholders
understand how knowledge of the behavioral and social sciences will contribute to decisions about who has the
academic preparation needed to be ready for medical school. This early research was especially important because this
section tested concepts and reasoning skills not previously tested on the MCAT exam.
In 2013, these researchers administered a prototype of the test to more than 2,000 first- and second-year medical
students before they started the school year. The researchers then correlated students prototype scores with outcomes
(e.g., grades and test scores) from medical school courses and clerkships that draw on the behavioral and social sciences.
As displayed in Figure 11, results from the first cohort of medical studentsthose who entered medical school in
2012show that scores from the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section correlate with
medical students performance in courses, on tests, and in clerkships that draw on the behavioral and social sciences.
Figure 11 shows median correlations between scores on this section and students academic performance in four
types of preclerkship courses, subscores from sections of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE)
Step 1 exam that test related behavioral sciences concepts, and three types of clerkships.
Scores from this new section correlate with performance in behavioral and social sciences courses, such as foundations
of psychiatric/behavioral medicine, epidemiology/public health, and neuroscience. These median correlations exceed the
standard for a medium effect in the social sciences (Cohen 1992).
Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior scores are likely to predict academic performance in
medical school courses, clerkships, and USMLE Step 1 sections with behavioral and social sciences content.
The researchers in this study also included outcomes from foundations of clinical medicine courses that are taught in the first
two years of medical school. They included outcomes from these courses as a contrast because they did not expect prototype
scores from this section to be strong predictors of students performance in coursework aimed at introducing students to
history taking, interview skills, and other behavioral skills taught in these early courses. Figure 11 shows that scores from this
section correlate less well with performance in foundations of clinical medicine courses. These contrast findings provide early
evidence about the kinds of medical school outcomes that scores from this section should and should not predict.
Scores from this new section also correlate with students scores on the behavioral sciences section of the USMLE Step
1 exam and academic performance in related clerkships.

Figure 11. Median correlations between the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section
scores and 2012 entering medical students' academic performance in four types of preclerkship courses, the USMLE
Step 1 exam, and three clerkships.1

The study also examined associations between the scores from the old MCAT exam that participating students
entered medical school with and measures of academic performance on these same outcomes. Like the results
for scores from the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section, most of the correlations
between scores from the old MCAT exam and course grades in foundations of psychiatric/behavioral medicine are
medium in size, but they are lower than those for the prototype (see Figure 12). Collectively, these data suggest
that scores from the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section are likely to predict
medical students academic performance in preclerkship courses, clerkships, and on the USMLE Step 1 sections with
behavioral and social sciences content.
Figure 12. Comparison of median correlations between new and old MCAT section scores and 2012 entering medical
students academic performance in foundations of psychiatric/behavioral medicine courses.1

What else will we learn about the impact, use, and predictive validity of the new MCAT exam?
The predictive validity research conducted on the prototype version of the Psychological, Social, and Biological
Foundations of Behavior section described in the section above is only the beginning of the work that researchers
are doing to evaluate the redesigned MCAT exam. Now that the new exam has launched, admissions officers and
researchers from 18 medical schools are carrying out a validity research program to study the new exam. Table 4 shows
the schools represented on the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior Validity Committee and
the broader MCAT Validity Committee.
Table 4. Medical Schools Represented on the Two MCAT Validity Committees
Psychological, Social, and

Biological Foundations
Participating Medical School MCAT Validity Committee
of Behavior Validity
Committee
Boston University School of Medicine
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons
East Tennessee State University James H. Quillen College of Medicine
Meharry Medical College
Memorial University of Newfoundland Faculty of Medicine
Morehouse School of Medicine
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Saint Louis University School of Medicine
Stanford University School of Medicine
The Ohio State University College of Medicine
University of Texas School of Medicine at San Antonio
Tulane University School of Medicine
University of Arizona College of Medicine - Tucson
University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine
University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine
University of Central Florida College of Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine
University of Mississippi School of Medicine
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences F. Edward

Hbert School of Medicine
Note: Pre-health advisors from Colgate University and The University of Hawaii at Manoa are also members of the MCAT Validity
Committee.

The MCAT Validity Committee, made up of representatives from 18 medical schools plus two undergraduate
advisors in the health professions, established a research agenda to study the use, impact, and predictive validity of
scores from the new exam. The validity research agenda includes four areas of investigation with related research
questions about the use of the new exam and its impact on examinees, applicants, medical students, and medical
school admissions committees.
The MCAT Validity Committee is examining the use, impact, and predictive value of scores from the new exam.
For example, one of the major goals of this research is to determine how well total and section scores from the
new MCAT exam predict performance in medical school. The MCAT Validity Committee will continue to examine
how students prepare for and perform on the new exam and whether there are ways to improve the information
and resources that are available to underperforming students. These researchers will also study the ways that MCAT
scores are used with other information about academic preparation, experiences, and attributes in admissions
decision making.
Figure 13 shows the four areas of investigation in the MCAT validity research agenda along with sample research
questions. The text that follows provides more information about each area, highlighting findings from the
investigations that are reported in this guide.
Figure 13. MCAT validity research agenda: the four areas of investigation and sample research questions.
Do scores from the new Are students who take

MCAT exam predict academic the new exam completing
performance equally well for coursework in biochemistry,
students from different psychology, and sociology
demographic groups? at higher rates than
students in the past?
Diversity
Academic
and
Preparation
Fairness
Predicting
Admissions Students
Decision Academic
Making Performance in
Do admissions Medical School Do scores from
committees balance the the new MCAT
weight of MCAT scores exam predict academic
with experiences, attributes, performance in all four years
and demographics? of medical school?

Diversity and fairness
The MCAT Validity Committee has also begun examining data related to diversity and fairness. Figure 6 shows the
demographic diversity of examinees who sat for the new exam in 2015. The demographic makeup of 2015 examinees
was very similar to the makeup from previous years, suggesting that no examinee groups were reticent to take the
new exam. The committee is also studying findings like those presented in Figure 9, looking closely at how the
group differences on the new exam compare to differences on the old exam and on other standardized tests. When
data are available, the committee will ask important questions about whether scores from the MCAT exam predict
performance equally well for medical students from different sociodemographic backgrounds.
Academic preparation
The MCAT Validity Committee is also studying academic preparation trends. Figure 7 shows the coursework taken
by 2015 examinees. More 2015 examinees completed psychology, sociology, biochemistry, and statistics courses
compared with examinees from previous years. The committee is looking carefully at differences in preparation
for examinees from different sociodemographic backgrounds to understand how the opposing forces of academic
preparation and disadvantage influence test scores. Understanding these factors will help the committee look for
ways to improve the information and resources that are available to educationally disadvantaged students.
Admissions decision making
Research on the use of MCAT scores in admissions decision making has already begun. Table 1 of this guide shows
the results of a survey administered in 2015 on the importance of applicants experiences, academic preparation,
and demographics in judging readiness for medical school. This survey asked admissions officers to provide baseline
information about their use of scores from the old MCAT exam in admissions decision making.
The MCAT Validity Committee will administer a follow-up survey in the summer of 2017 to gather data about the
impact of the new exam on their admissions processes, decisions, and how they use scores from the new MCAT
exam. This survey will be administered at the close of the 2017 admissions cycle, after admissions committees have
worked for two years with scores from the new exam.
It is also important to find out how admissions committees work with undergraduate GPAs and scores from the new
exam in making acceptance decisions. Table 3 of this guide shows preliminary data on the pool of accepted applicants
from the 2016 admissions cycle, in which about half of the applicants reported scores from the new exam. These data
will be updated once the 2016 cycle is complete and then annually thereafter.
Predicting students academic performance in medical school
The value of scores from the old MCAT exam in predicting students performance in medical school has been well
established (Donnon et al. 2007; Dunleavy et al. 2013; Julian 2005; Koenig and Wiley, 1997; Kroopnick et al. 2013;
Kuncel and Hezlett 2007). Studies show that undergraduate grades and scores from the old MCAT exam predict
students grades in medical school, academic difficulty or distinction, time to graduation, scores on USMLE Step
exams, and unimpeded progress toward graduation. The MCAT Validity Committee will be extending this research
and the research conducted by the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior Validity Committee,
examining the value of total and section scores from the new MCAT exam in predicting students academic
performance in all four years of medical school.
The 18 medical schools participating in the MCAT validity research will collect medical student performance data from
entry through graduation for students who enter medical school in 2016 and 2017. They will examine the association
of MCAT scores with academic performance in medical school courses and clerkships, USMLE Step exam scores, time
to graduation, and graduation rates. These data will be reported on a regular basis beginning with data about the
association between MCAT scores and academic performance in students initial courses.

The research design for the predictive validity studies will include both national and institution-specific data. The
national data will answer questions about the value of MCAT scores in predicting the performance of medical
students attending all U.S.-accredited medical schools. The MCAT Validity Committee will study the associations
between MCAT scores and outcomes such as performance on the licensure exams, withdrawal or dismissal for
academic reasons, and completing medical school with unimpeded progress. These national outcomes have meaning
for all U.S. medical schools, but they cannot answer questions about things that are important to an individual
medical school.
The local data will answer questions about the association between MCAT scores and outcomes tied to the medical
school curriculum, such as student performance in courses and other events (e.g., blocks), on locally maintained tests,
and on important markers of progression throughout the curriculum. The value of the local data is the view of MCAT
scores in the context of an individual medical school with its unique mission, characteristics, curricula, support, and
student body that cannot otherwise be revealed.
The value of the local data is the view of MCAT scores in the context of an individual medical school with its unique
mission, characteristics, curricula, support, and student body that cannot otherwise be revealed.
Studying the association between MCAT scores and students academic performance in medical school will take time.
Figure 14 shows a timeline for reporting the first available data. The association between MCAT scores and academic
performance in year 1 of medical school will first be available at the end of 2017, and year 2 findings will first be
available at the end of 2018. As shown in Figure 14, it will take several years to show how well MCAT scores predict
graduation in four or five years.
Figure 14. Timeline for reporting initial results from the predictive validity research.
Graduate in 5 years
USMLE Step 1
Year 1 coursework Year 2 coursework Graduate in 4 years USMLE Step 2-CK
Clerkships
USMLE Step 2-CS
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

References
Association of American Medical Colleges. Post-MCAT Questionnaire Report. Available at www.aamc.org/data/pmq.

Accessed April 25, 2016.
Association of American Medical Colleges Admissions Initiative. Unpublished data. 2013 Study of medical school
admissions policies and practices.
Association of American Medical Colleges and SRA International, Inc. 2016. Survey of admissions officers about
the use and importance of Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) cores in medical school admissions: U.S. data
display and table survey results.
Cohen J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1):155159.
Davis, D., Dorsey, J.K., Franks, R.D., Sackett, P.R., Searcy, C.A., and Zhao, X. 2013. Do racial and ethnic group
differences in performance on the MCAT exam reflect test bias? Academic Medicine 88(5):593602.
Donnon, T., Paolucci, E.O., and Violato, C. 2007. The predictive validity of the MCAT for medical school performance
and medical board licensing examinations: A meta-analysis of the published research. Academic Medicine 82:100
106.
Dunleavy, D.M., Kroopnick, M.H., Dowd, K.W., Searcy, C.A., and Zhao, X. 2013. The predictive validity of the MCAT
exam in relation to academic performance through medical school: A national cohort study of 20012004
matriculants. Academic Medicine 88(5):666671.
Julian, E.R. 2005. Validity of the Medical College Admission Test for predicting medical school performance. Academic
Medicine 80:910917.
Koenig, J.A., and Wiley, A. 1997. Medical school admission testing. In R.F. Dillon (Ed.), Handbook on Testing
(pp. 274295). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Kroopnick, M.H., Dunleavy, D.M., Dowd, K.W., Searcy, C.A., and Zhao, X. 2013. A comprehensive school-level analysis
of the predictive validity of the Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). Paper presented at the annual conference
of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Kuncel, N.R., and Hezlett, S.A. 2007. Standardized tests predict graduate students success. Science 315:10801081.
Mitchell, K., Haynes, R., and Koenig, J.A. 1994. Assessing the validity of the updated Medical College Admission Test.
Academic Medicine 69:394401.
Monroe, A., Quinn, E., Samuelson, W., Dunleavy, D., and Dowd, K. 2013. An overview of the medical school
admission process and use of applicant data in decision making: What has changed since the 1980s? Academic
Medicine 88:672681.
Roth, P.L., Bevier, C.A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F.S. III, and Tyler, P. 2001. Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in
employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 54:297330.
Sackett, P.R., and Shen, W. 2010. Subgroup differences on cognitive tests in contexts other than personnel selection.
In J.L. Outtz (Ed.), Adverse Impact: Implications for Organizational Staffing and High Stakes Selection (pp. 323
346). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Schwartzstein, R.M., Rosenfeld, G.C., Hilborn, R., Oyewole, S.H., and Mitchell, K. 2013. Redesigning the MCAT exam:
Balancing multiple perspectives. Academic Medicine 88(5):560567.

Appendix A. Description of the Foundational Concepts, Scientific

Inquiry and Reasoning Skills, and Information-Processing Skills Tested
on the Four Sections of the MCAT Exam
Appendix A provides descriptions of the foundational concepts, content categories, and ways that examinees
demonstrate their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills on the three sections of the MCAT exam that assess academic
preparation in the natural, behavioral, and social sciences. It also describes the ways that examinees demonstrate their
information-processing skills in the Critical Analysis and Reasoning section.

Medical school applicants must be prepared to learn about the biological and biochemical concepts that contribute to
health and disease. When they enter medical school, they must be ready to learn how:
The major biochemical, genetic, and molecular functions of the cell support health and lead to disease
Cells grow and integrate to form tissues and organs that carry out essential biochemical and physiological functions
The body responds to internal and external stimuli to support homeostasis and the ability to reproduce
The Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems section tests three foundational concepts and several
reasoning skills that are building blocks for learning in medical school. This section asks examinees to solve problems
by combining their knowledge of foundational concepts from biology, biochemistry, general chemistry, and organic
chemistry with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills.
Figure A.1 lists the foundational concepts and the more specific content categories tested within each foundational
concept. It also provides examples of the ways examinees are asked to combine their knowledge of foundational
concepts with their scientific reasoning skills to answer test questions in this section.
Figure A.1. Foundational concepts, content categories, and scientific inquiry and reasoning skills tested on the
Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems section.

Foundational Concept 1 Foundational Concept 2 Foundational Concept 3
Biomolecules have unique properties that Highly organized assemblies of molecules, cells, Complex systems of tissues and organs sense the
determine how they contribute to the structure and organs interact to carry out the function of internal and external environments of multicellular
and function of cells and how they participate living organisms. organisms and through integrated functioning,
in the processes necessary to sustain life. maintain a stable internal environment within an
ever-changing external environment.
Content Categories Content Categories Content Categories
Structure and functions of protein and their Assemblies of molecules, cells, and groups of
Structure and functions of the nervous and
constituent amino acids cells within singular cellular and multicellular
endocrine systems and ways in which the
Transmission of genetic information from the organisms systems coordinate the organ systems
gene to the protein The structure, growth, physiology, and Structure and integrative functions of the
Transmission of heritable information from genetics of prokaryotes and viruses main organ systems
generation to generation and the processes Processes of cell division, differentiation, and
that increase genetic diversity specialization
Principles of bioenergetics and fuel molecule
metabolism
Questions in this section of the test ask examinees to combine their knowledge of the foundational concepts listed above with their
scientific inquiry and reasoning skills. Questions on this section might ask examinees to:
Recall the structural characteristics of two tissues and relate them to one another
Apply their understanding of Le Chteliers Principle to explain differences in deprotonation of organic acids when added to blood vs. pure water
Use knowledge of adaptive immune response to evaluate the acceptability of a treatment for use in a clinical context
Form a hypothesis about the effect of the pineal gland on thermogenesis based on the data from an experiment investigating the interaction of
temperature and pineal gland activity on body and organ weights for hamsters under different experimental conditions
Use data about wavelength and light absorption to determine the color perception of an individual with a given phenotype


Medical school applicants must be prepared to learn about the mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of
human tissues, organs, and organ systems and how these contribute to health and disease. When they enter medical
school, they must be ready to learn about:
The physiological functions of the respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological systems in health and disease
Molecular and cellular functions in health and disease
The Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems section tests two foundational concepts and several
reasoning skills that are building blocks for learning in medical school. This section asks test takers to solve problems
by combining their knowledge of foundational concepts from biology, biochemistry, physics, and general and organic
chemistry with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills.
Figure A.2 lists the foundational concepts and content categories tested in this section. It also provides examples of
the ways examinees are asked to combine their knowledge of foundational concepts with their scientific inquiry and
reasoning skills to answer test questions on the Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems section.
Chemical and Physical Foundations of Biological Systems section.
Foundational Concept 4 Foundational Concept 5

Complex living organisms transport materials, sense their environment, The principles that govern chemical interactions and reactions form the
process signals, and respond to changes using processes that can be basis for a broader understanding of the molecular dynamics of living
understood in terms of physical principles. systems.
Content Categories Content Categories

Translational motion, forces, work, energy, and equilibrium in living Unique nature of water and its solutions
systems Nature of molecules and intermolecular interactions
Importance of fluids for the circulation of blood, gas movement, and Separation and purification methods
gas exchange Structure, function, and reactivity of biologically relevant molecules
Electrochemistry and electrical circuits and their elements Atoms, nuclear decay, electronic structure, and atomic chemical
How light and sound interact with matter behavior
Atoms, nuclear decay, electronic structure, and atomic chemical
behavior
Questions in this section of the test ask examinees to combine their knowledge of the foundational concepts listed above with their
Identify the relationship between the distribution of electric charges in the axon and the electric field lines they produce
Recognize the principles of flow characteristics of blood in the human body and apply the appropriate mathematical model to an unfamiliar
scenario
Change the experimental conditions of a test for proteins in a solution to prevent the formation of precipitates
Select between the standard and Doppler ultrasound techniques for a given context, considering the appropriateness, precision, and accuracy of
each technique
Use, analyze, and interpret data in a graph to determine the half-life of a radioactive substance used to measure cardiac function


Medical school applicants must be prepared to learn about the impact of behavioral and sociocultural factors on
illness and health outcomes. When they enter medical school, they must be ready to learn how:
Cognitive and perceptual processes influence the understanding of health and illness
Behavior can either support health or increase risk for disease
Perception, attitudes, and beliefs influence interactions with patients and other members of the health care team
Patients social and demographic backgrounds influence their perceptions of health and disease, the health care
team, and therapeutic interventions
Social and economic factors can affect access to care and the probability of maintaining health and recovering from disease
The Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section tests five foundational concepts and
several reasoning skills in the behavioral and social sciences that are building blocks for learning in medical school.
This section tests the foundational concepts in psychology, sociology, and biology that tomorrows doctors need to
serve an increasingly diverse population and have a clear understanding of the impact of behavior and sociocultural
differences on health. Like the natural sciences sections, this section asks test takers to solve problems by combining
their knowledge of foundational concepts with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills. It does not measure
applicants interpersonal skills, the way they will behave, or their attitudes and beliefs about social issues.
Figure A.3 lists the foundational concepts tested in this section. It also provides examples of the ways examinees are
asked to combine their knowledge of foundational concepts with their scientific inquiry and reasoning skills to answer
test questions on the Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section.
Psychological, Social, and Biological Foundations of Behavior section.
Foundational Concept 6 Foundational Concept 7 Foundational Concept 8 Foundational Concept 9 Foundational Concept 10
Biological, psychological, Biological, psychological, Psychological, socio Cultural and social Social stratification and
and sociocultural factors and sociocultural factors cultural, and biological differences influence access to resources
influence the ways that influence behavior and factors influence the way well-being. influence well-being.
individuals perceive, think behavior change. we think about ourselves
about, and react to the and others.
world.
Content Categories Content Categories Content Categories Content Categories Content Categories
Sensing the environment Individual influences on Self-identity Understanding social Social inequity
Making sense of the behavior Social thinking structure
environment Social processes that Social interactions Demographic
Responding to the world influence human characteristics and
behavior processes
Attitude and behavior
change
Questions in this section of the test ask examinees to combine their knowledge of foundational concepts listed above with their
Draw conclusions about the type of memory affected by an experimental manipulation when shown a graph of findings from a memory
experiment
Reason about whether a causal explanation is possible when given an example of how personality predicts individual behavior
Distinguish the kinds of claims that can be made when using longitudinal data, cross-sectional data, or experimental data in studies of social
interaction
Identify the relationship between demographic variables and health variables reported in a table or figure
Identify the relationship between social institutions that is suggested by an illustration used in a public health campaign


The Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section has a different organizing structure than the other sections of the
exam. It tests how well test takers comprehend, analyze, and evaluate what they read; draw inferences from text; and
apply arguments to new ideas and situations. It asks applicants to process information, draw conclusions, and solve
problems from information that is presented in passages.
This section tests examinees ability to process information by having them read passages from a diverse set of
disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. However, the questions on the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills
section do not rely on specific background knowledge in the humanities and social sciences. Applicants get all the
information they need to answer the questions in the accompanying passages or in the questions themselves.
Questions in the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills section of the test ask examinees to
demonstrate their information-processing skills by:
Understanding the basic components of the text
Inferring meaning from rhetorical devices, word choice, and text structure
Integrating different components of the text to increase comprehension
Applying or extrapolating ideas from the passage to new contexts
Assessing the impact of introducing new factors, information, or conditions to ideas from the passage

Appendix B. MCAT Total and Section Score Percentile Ranks in Effect

May 1, 2016April 30, 2017
MCAT Total
5.0
Mean = 499.6
4.5
Std. Deviation = 10.4
4.0
3.5
3.0
Percent
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Total Score
Total Percentile Total Percentile Total Percentile

Score Rank Score Rank Score Rank
472 <1 491 23 510 84
473 <1 492 26 511 86
474 <1 493 29 512 88
475 <1 494 32 513 90
476 1 495 35 514 92
477 1 496 39 515 94
478 2 497 42 516 95
479 2 498 45 517 96
480 3 499 49 518 97
481 4 500 53 519 98
482 5 501 56 520 98
483 7 502 60 521 99
484 8 503 63 522 99
485 10 504 67 523 >99
486 12 505 70 524 >99
487 13 506 73 525 >99
488 16 507 76 526 >99
489 18 508 79 527 >99
490 20 509 82 528 100
Notes:
The column labeled Percentile Rank provides the percentage of scores equal to or less than each score point. These
percentile ranks are based on all MCAT results from April through September in 2015. For example, 79% of MCAT total
scores were equal to or less than 508 across all exams administered in 2015.
In the future, updates will be made on May 1 each year. In 2017, the percentile ranks will include all exam results from the
previous two years. In 2018, the percentile ranks will include all exam results from the previous three years. After 2018,
percentile ranks will be updated annually to include all exam results from the three most recent years.

Summary of MCAT Total and Section Scores (Continued )

Appendix B (continued) Percentile Ranks in Effect May 1, 2016 to April 30, 2017
Section Percentile
14
Mean = 124.9 Score Rank
12 Std. Deviation = 3.0 118 1
119 3
10 120 7
Percent
8 121 13
122 22
6 123 33
4 124 45
125 57
2 126 68
0 127 79
128 87
129 93
130 97
Section Score 131 99
132 100
Section Percentile
14
119 3
10 120 7
Percent
8 121 14
122 25
6 123 37
4 124 49
125 62
2 126 74
127 83
0
128 90
129 95
130 98
132 100
14 Section Percentile
119 3
10
120 7
Percent
8 121 13
122 22
6 123 33
4 124 44
125 56
2 126 67
0 127 78
128 87
129 92
130 97
132 100
14 Section Percentile
119 3
10
120 7
Percent
8 121 13
122 22
6 123 32
4 124 44
125 55
2 126 67
0 127 78
128 86
129 92
130 97
132 100

Medical College Admission Test

MCAT is a program of the

www.aamc.org/mcat

(AAMC) MCATguide 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(AAMC) MCATguide 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Medical College Admission Test

Using MCAT Data in 2017

MCAT is a program of the

Association of American Medical Colleges

Letter to Admissions Officers 1

Interpreting and Using MCAT Scores in Admissions Decision Making 3

What does the MCAT exam measure? 5

How are MCAT scores calculated and reported? 7

How did examinees prepare for the new MCAT exam? 12

How well did examinees perform on the new MCAT exam? 13

Understanding the Predictive Validity of Scores from the MCAT Exam 20

Cynthia A. Searcy, PhD

1 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

What does the MCAT exam measure?

How are MCAT scores calculated and reported?

3 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

Mean Academic Metrics Experiences Demographics Other Data

4 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

What does the MCAT exam measure?

1. Biological and Biochemical Foundations of Living Systems

5 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

Foundational Concepts Tested on the MCAT Exam

Chemical and Physical

1. Knowledge of Scientific Concepts and Principles

2. Scientific Reasoning and Problem Solving

3. Reasoning about the Design and Execution of Research

4. Data-Based and Statistical Reasoning

Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

How are MCAT scores calculated and reported?

7 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

8 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506

9 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

Figure 5. Illustration of the score profile in the MCAT score report.

MCAT Score Profile

Section Score Profile1

118 125 132

118 125 132

118 125 132

118 125 132

10 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

How did examinees prepare for the new MCAT exam?

How did examinees perform on the new MCAT exam?

11 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

How did examinees prepare for the new MCAT exam?

12 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

How well did examinees perform on the new MCAT exam?

13 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

14 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

15 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

2016 applicants with scores from the new MCAT exam

16 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

17 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

18 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

19 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

Understanding the Predictive Validity of Scores from the MCAT Exam

What information is available about the predictive validity of scores from

20 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

21 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

22 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

Psychological, Social, and

23 Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016

Do scores from the new Are students who take