Analysis of FRCR Examination Performance Factors:
The Royal College of Radiologists has recently made public an analysis of the FRCR examination based on the Spring 2014 examination. This is a detailed analysis of all components of the FRCR examination. As expected the data is analysed with great statistical detail and one area reviewed was the relative performance of women versus men and of trainees originating from within the UK versus overseas trainees (non-EU as there were insufficient EU candidates for statistical analysis).Question: How you perform in the exam if you are a woman versus a man?
Answer : statistically no difference.
Question: What about if you are an overseas (OS) non-EU radiology trainee versus a UK graduate?
Answer: statistically moderately significant difference
Average raw scores:
Rapid Reporting for UK trainees vs OS trainees: mean 92.2% v 86.5% (p=0.01)
Reports for UK trainees vs OS trainees: mean 76.06% v 72.58% (p=0.019)
Oral examination UK trainees vs OS trainees: mean 11.086 v 12.313 (p=0.001)
This makes for interesting reading. Clearly OS candidates underperform UK candidates. The college does not speculate why but clearly must be evaluating these parameters. One can postulate that the reasons may include: language or cultural differences, different training, poorer level of preparation, inadequate time to prepare/travel based on lottery system, for those working in the UK not being in training positions, and of course the potential of bias of the exam or examiners. The relative proportions of these and other factors are for us all to postulate.
Looking in more depth the data reveals that OS graduates suffer most in the Orals (average viva score of approximately 5.5 over two vivas compared to just over 6.0 for UK graduates) and in the rapid reporting (average score of 26/30 vs 27.5/30 ie 5.5 vs 6.5 for UK trainees). Comparably both OS and UK trainees are in the 6 range for their reports. Therefore, the viva and the rapid reporting would appear to be the key areas which overseas trainees should perhaps concentrate on.
Also of interest is the fact that with the exception of the rapid reporting even the average UK trainees sail incredibly close to the pass-fail margin on the Reports and the Viva.
Answer : statistically no difference.
Question: What about if you are an overseas (OS) non-EU radiology trainee versus a UK graduate?
Answer: statistically moderately significant difference
Average raw scores:
Rapid Reporting for UK trainees vs OS trainees: mean 92.2% v 86.5% (p=0.01)
Reports for UK trainees vs OS trainees: mean 76.06% v 72.58% (p=0.019)
Oral examination UK trainees vs OS trainees: mean 11.086 v 12.313 (p=0.001)
This makes for interesting reading. Clearly OS candidates underperform UK candidates. The college does not speculate why but clearly must be evaluating these parameters. One can postulate that the reasons may include: language or cultural differences, different training, poorer level of preparation, inadequate time to prepare/travel based on lottery system, for those working in the UK not being in training positions, and of course the potential of bias of the exam or examiners. The relative proportions of these and other factors are for us all to postulate.
Looking in more depth the data reveals that OS graduates suffer most in the Orals (average viva score of approximately 5.5 over two vivas compared to just over 6.0 for UK graduates) and in the rapid reporting (average score of 26/30 vs 27.5/30 ie 5.5 vs 6.5 for UK trainees). Comparably both OS and UK trainees are in the 6 range for their reports. Therefore, the viva and the rapid reporting would appear to be the key areas which overseas trainees should perhaps concentrate on.
Also of interest is the fact that with the exception of the rapid reporting even the average UK trainees sail incredibly close to the pass-fail margin on the Reports and the Viva.