Cross-comparison of MRCGP & MRCP(UK) in a database linkage study of 2,284 candidates taking both examinations: assessment of validity and differential performance by ethnicity
نویسندگان
چکیده
BACKGROUND MRCGP and MRCP(UK) are the main entry qualifications for UK doctors entering general [family] practice or hospital [internal] medicine. The performance of MRCP(UK) candidates who subsequently take MRCGP allows validation of each assessment. In the UK, underperformance of ethnic minority doctors taking MRCGP has had a high political profile, with a Judicial Review in the High Court in April 2014 for alleged racial discrimination. Although the legal challenge was dismissed, substantial performance differences between white and BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) doctors undoubtedly exist. Understanding ethnic differences can be helped by comparing the performance of doctors who take both MRCGP and MRCP(UK). METHODS We identified 2,284 candidates who had taken one or more parts of both assessments, MRCP(UK) typically being taken 3.7 years before MRCGP. We analyzed performance on knowledge-based MCQs (MRCP(UK) Parts 1 and 2 and MRCGP Applied Knowledge Test (AKT)) and clinical examinations (MRCGP Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) and MRCP(UK) Practical Assessment of Clinical Skills (PACES)). RESULTS Correlations between MRCGP and MRCP(UK) were high, disattenuated correlations for MRCGP AKT with MRCP(UK) Parts 1 and 2 being 0.748 and 0.698, and for CSA and PACES being 0.636. BME candidates performed less well on all five assessments (P < .001). Correlations disaggregated by ethnicity were complex, MRCGP AKT showing similar correlations with Part1/Part2/PACES in White and BME candidates, but CSA showing stronger correlations with Part1/Part2/PACES in BME candidates than in White candidates. CSA changed its scoring method during the study; multiple regression showed the newer CSA was better predicted by PACES than the previous CSA. CONCLUSIONS High correlations between MRCGP and MRCP(UK) support the validity of each, suggesting they assess knowledge cognate to both assessments. Detailed analyses by candidate ethnicity show that although White candidates out-perform BME candidates, the differences are largely mirrored across the two examinations. Whilst the reason for the differential performance is unclear, the similarity of the effects in independent knowledge and clinical examinations suggests the differences are unlikely to result from specific features of either assessment and most likely represent true differences in ability.
منابع مشابه
Sociolinguistic factors affecting performance in the Clinical Skills Assessment of the MRCGP: a mixed-methods approach
Background: Differential performance in clinical skills assessments is a widespread phenomenon, for which there remain few explanations. Aim: To better understand the conversational contexts of simulated consultations and how candidates actually behave in these consultations and to determine sociolinguistic factors for highand low-performing candidates. Design & setting: Taking the Membership o...
متن کاملChanges in standard of candidates taking the MRCP(UK) Part 1 examination, 1985 to 2002: Analysis of marker questions
BACKGROUND The maintenance of standards is a problem for postgraduate medical examinations, particularly if they use norm-referencing as the sole method of standard setting. In each of its diets, the MRCP(UK) Part 1 Examination includes a number of marker questions, which are unchanged from their use in a previous diet. This paper describes two complementary studies of marker questions for 52 d...
متن کاملPerformance in the MRCP(UK) Examination 2003–4: analysis of pass rates of UK graduates in relation to self-declared ethnicity and gender
BACKGROUND Male students and students from ethnic minorities have been reported to under-perform in undergraduate medical examinations. We examined the effects of ethnicity and gender on pass rates in UK medical graduates sitting the Membership of the Royal Colleges of Physicians in the United Kingdom [MRCP(UK)] Examination in 2003-4. METHODS Pass rates for each part of the examination were a...
متن کاملImplementing statistical equating for MRCP(UK) parts 1 and 2
BACKGROUND The MRCP(UK) exam, in 2008 and 2010, changed the standard-setting of its Part 1 and Part 2 examinations from a hybrid Angoff/Hofstee method to statistical equating using Item Response Theory, the reference group being UK graduates. The present paper considers the implementation of the change, the question of whether the pass rate increased amongst non-UK candidates, any possible role...
متن کاملSelecting general practice specialty trainees: where next?
Selection into GP speciality training is based on results of a multi-method job analysis study. Six key competency domains were identified as priorities to assess through the current national selection process, including empathy, communication, integrity, clinical expertise, problemsolving, and resilience. Each applicant is assessed using clinical problem-solving and situational judgement machi...
متن کامل