ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2005
What is being assessed in the MRCGP oral examination? A qualitative study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The viva voce innovation and experience at a new medical school in Rwanda.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Viva voce in postgraduate surgical examinations in anglophone west Africa.Journal of the West African College of Surgeons · 2011Article
- Assessing general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Article
- The changing face of assessment: swings and roundabouts.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Article
- Prompting Candidates in Oral Assessment Contexts: A Taxonomy and Guiding Principles.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOral examinations are a popular method of assessment within medicine, being capable of measuring candidates' ability to carry out tasks or develop skills (operational knowledge). One example of this is the oral examination for membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), which is designed to assess candidates' decision-making skills and the professional values that underpin these decisions. While the reliability of oral examinations has been investigated, to date, little is known about their ability to measure what they set out to measure (validity).
aimTo investigate the content validity of the MRCGP oral examination, with particular focus on its ability to assess the process of decision-making. DESIGN OF STUDY: An evaluation of oral examination video recordings, using qualitative methods.
methodThe MRCGP oral examinations are video recorded as part of an ongoing quality assurance programme. Fifty of the recordings carried out in 2002 were selected randomly and analysed for content and dialogue patterns reflecting the assessment of the decisionmaking process.
resultsAll examiners used the specified contexts outlined in the examination objectives to present candidates with dilemmas. The assessment of decision-making skills, however, was limited by a tendency among examiners to present the candidate with new, more complex dilemmas rather than giving them the opportunity to discuss the implications, make choices and ultimately, justify their decision. Moreover, while examiners frequently asked candidates questions relating to professional values, they rarely asked them to demonstrate how those values support their decisions.
conclusionIn order that the benefits of oral examination can be fully realised, questions need to be structured in a way that encourages candidates to discuss all stages of the decision-making process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15970066PMC1472743W1740214396What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.