(254) The Utility of an Interview Day Passage-Based Writing Assessment to Predict Academic Success.

Objective : Poor performance on the School's algebra-based math assessment administered on interview day moderately correlates with worse PY1 curricular outcomes and jeopardizes progression. Here, similar analyses were performed on a writing assessment.

Methods: As part of the School’s holistic and standardized admissions process, a passage-based writing assessment comprised of a science passage and writing prompt was administered on each interview day. This assessment constituted 10% of the overall interview score (OIS). Submissions were independently graded by the same two evaluators, and three component scores (essay summary, grammar, clarity and readability) were averaged. Writing assessment score (WAS) was compared between progressing vs. academically dismissed students. Correlation analyses on WAS vs. OIS, math assessment score (MAS), and course grades were also performed. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were classified as weak (r=0.00-0.29), moderate (r=0.30-0.49), or strong (r≥0.50).

Results: The average WAS of progressing (n=71) vs. academically dismissed (n=2) students did not differ (p=0.15), but MAS did (p < 0.01). While the MAS moderately correlated with OIS (r=0.38), WAS weakly correlated with OIS (r= 0.21), MAS (r=0.04), and grades (in order of declining correlation strength) in Biochemistry, Introduction to Physiology, Introduction to Pharmacology, Medicinal Chemistry and Toxicology, Introduction to Patient Care I, and Introduction to Interprofessional Education.

Conclusions: As it is currently designed and evaluated, the writing assessment does not predict academic success. The subjective nature of a writing assessment vs. objective nature of a math assessment may confound data interpretation. These findings highlight the importance of routinely assessing the value of interview elements.