[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-182629-105":59,"doc-detail-182629-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","wrap-assessing-the-predictive-validity-of-the-ucat-brown-2021","WRAP assessing the predictive validity of the UCAT-Brown 2021","","WRAP evaluates the predictive validity of the UCAT-Brown 2021 by mapping multiple predictor variables to clinical outcomes. The content reports relationships such as positive or negative correlation, with classifications by effect size (large, medium, small) and statistical significance. Odds ratio results are summarized as positive, negative, or no association, including intervals and cases where associations are not statistically significant. A rank list identifies key predictors, led by Cognitive total, followed by VR, SJT, DA, and QR.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/wrap-assessing-the-predictive-validity-of-the-ucat-brown-2021/182629/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/wrap-assessing-the-predictive-validity-of-the-ucat-brown-2021/182629.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Riley West","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What does WRAP assess in the UCAT-Brown 2021 analysis?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"WRAP assesses the predictive validity by linking predictor variables (e.g., Cognitive total, VR, SJT, DA, QR, AR) to clinical outcome measures and reporting their statistical relationships.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How are associations between predictors and outcomes reported?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Associations are reported using correlation direction (positive/negative/no effect) and effect size levels (large/medium/small), with separate notes for whether results are statistically significant.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which predictor variables rank highest in the UCAT-Brown 2021 results?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The highest-ranked predictor is Cognitive total (35/49, 71%), followed by VR (19/35, 54%), then SJT (3/6, 50%), DA (13/31, 42%), and QR (10/32, 31%).","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},182629,1788349353,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":44,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":143},1099523885074,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","| Cell type | Description | Effect size |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| þþþ SS þþ SS þ SS 􀀄􀀄􀀄 SS 􀀄􀀄 SS\u003Cbr>􀀄 SS þþþ NSS þþ NSS þ NSS 􀀄􀀄􀀄 NSS 􀀄􀀄 NSS\u003Cbr>􀀄 NSS Mixed (þve)\u003Cbr>Mixed (􀀄ve)\u003Cbr>No effect SS\u003Cbr>No effect NSS Mixed (mixed)þ (OR) SS\u003Cbr>􀀄 (OR) SS No effect (OR) SS þ (OR) NSS\u003Cbr>􀀄 (OR) NSSNo effect (OR) NSS þ? SS | Positive correlation, large effect size, statistically significant Positive correlation, medium effect size, statistically significant Positive correlation small effect size, statistically significant Negative correlation, large effect size, statistically significant Negative correlation, medium effect size, statistically significant Negative correlation, small effect size, statistically significant Positive correlation, large effect size, not statistically significant Positive correlation, medium effect size, not statistically significant Positive correlation, small effect size, not statistically significant Negative correlation, large effect size, not statistically significant Negative correlation, medium effect size, not statistically significant Negative correlation, small effect size, not statistically significant\u003Cbr>Mixture of any positive SS correlation and not statistically significant and/or no effect Mixture of any negative SS correlation and not statistically significant and/or no effect No effect, statistically significant\u003Cbr>No effect, not statistically significant\u003Cbr>Mixture of any positive and negative correlation (either statistically significant or not statistically significant) Positive association (odds ratio), statistically significant\u003Cbr>Negative association (odds ratio), statistically significant No effect (odds ratio), statistically significant\u003Cbr>Positive association (odds ratio), not statistically significant Negative association (odds ratio), not statistically significant No effect (odds ratio), not statistically significant\u003Cbr>Positive correlation but qualitatively (not quantitatively) expressed | r􀀅 0.5\u003Cbr>r􀀅 0.3\u003Cbr>r􀀅 0.1\u003Cbr>r 􀀆 􀀄0.5\u003Cbr>r 􀀆 􀀄0.3\u003Cbr>r 􀀆 􀀄0.1\u003Cbr>r􀀅 0.5\u003Cbr>r􀀅 0.3\u003Cbr>r􀀅 0.1\u003Cbr>r 􀀆 􀀄0.5\u003Cbr>r 􀀆 􀀄0.3\u003Cbr>r 􀀆 􀀄0.1 –\u003Cbr>–\u003Cbr>r ¼ 􀀄0.099–0.099\u003Cbr>r ¼ 􀀄0.099–0.099 –\u003Cbr>OR 􀀅 1.50 OR 􀀆 0.66\u003Cbr>OR 0.67–1.49 OR 􀀅 1.50\u003Cbr>OR 􀀆 0.66\u003Cbr>OR 0.67–1.49\u003Cbr>– |\n\n| Cognitive total Cognitive þ SJT total AR DA QR VR SJT | Predictor var iab les n ¼ 49 n ¼ 4 n ¼ 35 n ¼ 3 1 n ¼ 32 n ¼ 35 n ¼ 6 | Criterion variables Pre- - -c linical Pre c l inica l ski l ls based Pre-c l inica l tota l C l inica l knowledge-based C l inica l ski l ls-based Clinical total Professional behaviour in Professional behaviour in | knowledge-based MS MS (c l inica l— | ( pre-c linical) adverse outcomes) | n ¼ 4 1 n ¼ 29 n ¼ 15 n ¼ 24 n ¼ 25 n ¼ 5 n ¼ 9 n ¼ 4 | Course academic total Course completion UKFPO EPM tota l UKFPO EPM dec ile UKFPO SJT UKFPO total FtP declarations (health) FtP declarations (conduct)\u003Cbr>7 1 10 7 7 5 1 2 | n ¼ n ¼ n ¼ n ¼ n ¼ n ¼ n ¼ n ¼ |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n\n\n| Rank | Predictor variable | N (þve SS or mixedþ ve)/n (data points for given predictor variable) (%) |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 1 | Cognitive total | 35/49 (71%) |\n| 2 | VR | 19/35 (54%) |\n| 3 | SJT | 3/6 (50%) |\n| 4 | DA | 13/31 (42%) |\n| 5 | QR | 10/32 (31%) |\n| 6 | Cognitiveþ SJT total | 1/4 (25%) |\n| 7 | AR | 7/35 (20%) |","cbCaihExLRyAtl6s","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaihExLRyAtl6s","pdf",1360002,"English","# Predictive validity assessment\n## Correlation and effect size categories\n## Odds ratio association results\n## Predictor ranking","[{\"question\":\"What does WRAP assess in the UCAT-Brown 2021 analysis?\",\"answer\":\"WRAP assesses the predictive validity by linking predictor variables (e.g., Cognitive total, VR, SJT, DA, QR, AR) to clinical outcome measures and reporting their statistical relationships.\"},{\"question\":\"How are associations between predictors and outcomes reported?\",\"answer\":\"Associations are reported using correlation direction (positive/negative/no effect) and effect size levels (large/medium/small), with separate notes for whether results are statistically significant.\"},{\"question\":\"Which predictor variables rank highest in the UCAT-Brown 2021 results?\",\"answer\":\"The highest-ranked predictor is Cognitive total (35/49, 71%), followed by VR (19/35, 54%), then SJT (3/6, 50%), DA (13/31, 42%), and QR (10/32, 31%).\"}]","WRAP assessing the predictive validity of the UCAT-Brown 2021 | PDF",23]