↓ Skip to main content

Assessment at UK medical schools varies substantially in volume, type and intensity and correlates with postgraduate attainment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
18 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment at UK medical schools varies substantially in volume, type and intensity and correlates with postgraduate attainment
Published in
BMC Medical Education, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0428-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver Patrick Devine, Andrew Christopher Harborne, I. C. McManus

Abstract

In the United Kingdom (UK), medical schools are free to develop local systems and policies that govern student assessment and progression. Successful completion of an undergraduate medical degree results in the automatic award of a provisional licence to practice medicine by the General Medical Council (GMC). Such a licensing process relies heavily on the assumption that individual schools develop similarly rigorous assessment policies. Little work has evaluated variability of undergraduate medical assessment between medical schools. That absence is important in the light of the GMC's recent announcement of the introduction of the UKMLA (UK Medical Licensing Assessment) for all doctors who wish to practise in the UK. The present study aimed to quantify and compare the volume, type and intensity of summative assessment across medicine (A100) courses in the United Kingdom, and to assess whether intensity of assessment correlates with the postgraduate attainment of doctors from these schools. Locally knowledgeable students in each school were approached to take part in guided-questionnaire interviews via telephone or Skype(TM). Their understanding of assessment at their medical school was probed, and later validated with the assessment department of the respective medical school. We gathered data for 25 of 27 A100 programmes in the UK and compared volume, type and intensity of assessment between schools. We then correlated these data with the mean first-attempt score of graduates sitting MRCGP and MRCP(UK), as well as with UKFPO selection measures. The median written assessment volume across all schools was 2000 min (mean = 2027, SD = 586, LQ = 1500, UQ = 2500, range = 1000-3200) and 1400 marks (mean = 1555, SD = 463, LQ = 1200, UQ = 1800, range = 1100-2800). The median practical assessment volume was 400 min (mean = 472, SD = 207, LQ = 400, UQ = 600, range = 200-1000). The median intensity (minutes per mark ratio) of summative written assessment was 1.24 min per mark (mean = 1.28, SD = 0.30, LQ = 1.11, UQ = 1.37, range = 0.85-2.08). An exploratory analysis suggested a significant correlation of total assessment time with mean first-attempt score on both the knowledge and the clinical assessments of MRCGP and of MRCP(UK). There are substantial differences in the volume, format and intensity of undergraduate assessment between UK medical schools. These findings suggest a potential for differences in the reliability of detecting poorly performing students, or differences in identifying and stratifying academically equivalent students for ranking in the Foundation Programme Application System (FPAS). Furthermore, these differences appear to directly correlate with performance in postgraduate examinations. Taken together, our findings highlight highly variable local assessment procedures that warrant further investigation to establish their potential impact on students.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 106 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 17%
Student > Master 13 12%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Lecturer 6 6%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 28 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 30 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,629,433
of 25,090,809 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#194
of 3,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,726
of 273,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#4
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,090,809 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,815 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.