A Pilot Study of Reducing Test Anxiety in a Cohort of Underrepresented in Medicine MCAT Students Using Near-Peer Coaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) is a standardized exam taken by prospective medical students. The MCAT is critical for success in most of the US and parts of Canada, and such pressures may enhance test anxiety. For students from Underrepresented in Medicine (URM) backgrounds, this is often compounded by being the first in their family to take the MCAT. Methods: We conducted a literature review for interventions on test-related anxiety. Based on our findings, we elected to establish a pilot near-peer coaching (NPC) program for URM students enrolled at the Medical College of Wisconsin MCAT program. We quantified baseline and specific time point test-anxieties using the validated Westside test anxiety scale. We asked about MCAT concerns and program impressions via a free-response section and analyzed results with inductive analysis. Results: Our review could find no other studies examining MCAT related test anxiety in the prospective medical student population. NPC was chosen because of its accessibility. At baseline, approximately 50% of students had at least moderately high-test anxiety; meeting the threshold for intervention. Most students perceived themselves as unconfident in their ability to do well on the MCAT. We observed a decrease in test anxiety after coaching sessions. Students received the program well however, wanted to be able to choose the content and have more meetings. Conclusion: This observational pilot study suggests that URM pre-medical students have MCAT related test anxieties high enough to warrant intervention and that NPC is well-received and correlates to reduced test anxiety levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".