Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34090426›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Variation in performance on common content items at UK medical schools.

David Hope, David Kluth, Matthew Homer, Avril Dewar, Richard Fuller, Helen Cameron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Time for preference-informed foundation allocation?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

David HopeMedical Education Unit, Edinburgh Medical School, The Chancellor's Building, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, EH16 4SB, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. david.hope@ed.ac.uk.
David KluthMedical Education Unit, Edinburgh Medical School, The Chancellor's Building, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, EH16 4SB, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Matthew HomerLeeds School of Medicine, Worsley Building, Leeds Institute of Medical Education, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, Leeds, UK.
Avril DewarMedical Education Unit, Edinburgh Medical School, The Chancellor's Building, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, 49 Little France Crescent, EH16 4SB, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Richard FullerSchool of Medicine, University of Liverpool, University of Liverpool, Cedar House, Ashton St, L69 3GE, Liverpool, UK.
Helen CameronAston Medical School, Aston University, 295 Aston Express Way, B4 7ET, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to differing assessment systems across UK medical schools, making meaningful cross-school comparisons on undergraduate students' performance in knowledge tests is difficult. Ahead of the introduction of a national licensing assessment in the UK, we evaluate schools' performances on a shared pool of "common content" knowledge test items to compare candidates at different schools and evaluate whether they would pass under different standard setting regimes. Such information can then help develop a cross-school consensus on standard setting shared content.

methodsWe undertook a cross-sectional study in the academic sessions 2016-17 and 2017-18. Sixty "best of five" multiple choice 'common content' items were delivered each year, with five used in both years. In 2016-17 30 (of 31 eligible) medical schools undertook a mean of 52.6 items with 7,177 participants. In 2017-18 the same 30 medical schools undertook a mean of 52.8 items with 7,165 participants, creating a full sample of 14,342 medical students sitting common content prior to graduation. Using mean scores, we compared performance across items and carried out a "like-for-like" comparison of schools who used the same set of items then modelled the impact of different passing standards on these schools.

resultsSchools varied substantially on candidate total score. Schools differed in their performance with large (Cohen's d around 1) effects. A passing standard that would see 5 % of candidates at high scoring schools fail left low-scoring schools with fail rates of up to 40 %, whereas a passing standard that would see 5 % of candidates at low scoring schools fail would see virtually no candidates from high scoring schools fail.

conclusionsCandidates at different schools exhibited significant differences in scores in two separate sittings. Performance varied by enough that standards that produce realistic fail rates in one medical school may produce substantially different pass rates in other medical schools - despite identical content and the candidates being governed by the same regulator. Regardless of which hypothetical standards are "correct" as judged by experts, large institutional differences in pass rates must be explored and understood by medical educators before shared standards are applied. The study results can assist cross-school groups in developing a consensus on standard setting future licensing assessment.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateSchools, MedicalCross-Sectional StudiesEducational MeasurementHumansUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34090426
PMCPMC8180067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.