首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >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
【24h】

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

机译:MRCGP和MRCP(英国)在一项数据库链接研究中对2,284名同时参加两项考试的学生进行了交叉比较:通过种族评估有效性和差异表现

获取原文
           

摘要

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? 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.
机译:背景MRCGP和MRCP(UK)是英国医生进入普通[家庭]执业或医院[内部]医学的主要入学条件。随后参加MRCGP的MRCP(UK)候选人的表现可以验证每项评估。在英国,参加MRCGP的少数族裔医生表现不佳,在政治上享有很高的知名度,2014年4月在高等法院因涉嫌种族歧视而接受司法审查。尽管驳回了法律挑战,但白人医生和BME(黑人和少数民族)医生之间在性能上的巨大差异无疑是存在的。通过比较同时服用MRCGP和MRCP(UK)的医生的表现,有助于了解种族差异。方法我们确定了2,284名参加了两项或多项评估的候选人,其中MRCP(英国)通常在MRCGP考试之前3.7年参加。我们分析了基于知识的MCQ(MRCP(英国)第1和第2部分以及MRCGP应用知识测试(AKT))和临床检查(MRCGP临床技能评估(CSA)和MRCP(英国)临床技能实践评估(PACES)的效果)。结果MRCGP与MRCP(UK)之间的相关性很高,MRCGP AKT与MRCP(UK)第1部分和第2部分的相关性为0.748和0.698,而CSA和PACES为0.636。 BME候选人在所有五项评估中的表现均较差(P?CSA在研究期间更改了评分方法;多元回归表明,PACES预测较新的CSA比先前的CSA更好。结论MRCGP与MRCP(UK)之间的高度相关性支持了有效性候选种族的详细分析表明,尽管白人候选人的表现优于BME候选人,但两者的差异在很大程度上反映了两次考试的差异,虽然差异表现的原因尚不清楚,但相似之处对独立知识和临床检查的影响的研究表明,这种差异不太可能是由两种评估的特定特征引起的,并且很可能代表了能力的真正差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号