MRCP Research
It can be easy to get absorbed in the MRCP(UK) exam, but this should not be at the detriment of one's education in the whole of the Core Medical Training. It is an extremely carefully set and validated exam, and its performance is regularly monitored by the Joint Royal Colleges Board of Medical Training Board.
A number of interesting papers have been published on the methodology of the MRCP(UK) exam itself. Candidates might benefit from looking at some of these papers, for two reasons at least. Firstly, they are all good examples of how research is conducted, an important skill for all aspiring future physicians. Secondly, the papers show how much effort is put in behind-the-scenes to make the MRCP(UK) work.
Firstly, with the newest development in the exam, it is interesting how the examination of skills in Station 5 has developed. Prof Ian McManus has been presenting evidence on this, a short summary of which is available here.
Graduates of different UK medical schools show substantial differences in performance on MRCP(UK) Part 1, Part 2 and PACES examinations The aim of this study is to assess the performance of UK graduates who have taken MRCP(UK) Part 1, Part 2 and PACES (Practical Assessment of Clinical Examination Skills) and explore the reasons for the differences between medical schools. www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/6/5
Male students and students from ethnic minorities have been reported to underperform in undergraduate medical examinations. The aim of this study was to assess effects of ethnicity and gender for UK medical graduates on pass rates in the MRCP(UK) Examination sat in the UK in 2003-4. Paper: Performance in the MRCP(UK) Examination 2003-4: analysis of pass rates of UK graduates in relation to self-declared ethnicity and gender Neil G Dewhurst, Chris McManus, Jennifer Mollon, Jane E Dacre and Allister J Vale www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/5/8
Assessment of examiner leniency and stringency (‘hawk-dove effect') in the MRCP(UK) clinical examination (PACES) using multi-facet Rasch modelling Clinical examinations require that judgements of candidates are made by experienced examiners. A potential vulnerability of any clinical examination is that examiners differ in their relative leniency or stringency. This study looks at the paired judgements made by examiners in the MRCP(UK) Part 2 Clinical Examination (PACES) and calculates examiner stringency. IC McManus, M Thompson and J Mollon. www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/42
The MRCP(UK) is acknowledged as an examination of high calibre and prominent members of the medical education community routinely assess its design, conduct and performance. For example, a retrospective analysis of the MRCP(UK) Part 1 written examination found it had remained statistically reliable over a period of 18 years, across 54 diets. IC McManus, J Mooney-Summers, JE Dacre et al. Reliability of the MRCP (UK) Part I Examination, 1984-2001. Medical Education 2003; 37:609-611).