Background There is a lack of evidence on whether graduates from different medical schools perform differently in postgraduate examinations.
Objective To evaluate the variations in performance of UK medical graduates in Member of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (MRCOG) examination.
Methods A retrospective analysis of performance of 1335 doctors graduating in UK medical schools who entered the Part 1 MRCOG and 822 doctors taking the Part 2 MRCOG written examination for the first time between 1998 and 2008. The main outcome measures were to evaluate medical school effects, gender effects and academic performance effect.
Results Graduates of UK medical schools performed differently in the Part 1 and Part 2 written MRCOG examination. The graduates of Oxford (pass rate 82.6%), Cambridge (75%), Bristol (59.3%) and Edinburgh (57.5%) performed significantly better and the graduates of Liverpool (26.8%), Southampton (21.8%) and Wales (18.2%) performed significantly worse than the remaining cohort in the Part 1 examination. The candidates of Newcastle (88.9%), Oxford (82.4%), Cambridge (81%) and Edinburgh (78.2%) performed significantly better and the graduates of Glasgow (49.2%) and Leicester (36.2%) have significantly underperformed compared with the remaining cohort in Part 2 written examination. There was no difference in the success rates of male (47.5%) and female (42.0%) candidates in the Part 1; however, female candidates had a significantly better success rate in the Part 2 written examination than male candidates (65.6% vs 52.9%).
Conclusion These results show that there is variation in performance among the graduates from different medical schools in the Part 1 and Part 2 MRCOG written examination.
- MRCOG examination
- performance variation in MRCOG
- MRCOG results evaluation
- thoracic medicine
- statistics and research methods
- education and training (see medical education and training)
- medical education and training
- internal medicine
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.