Purpose of the study The aim of this study was to compare performance of candidates who declared an expert-confirmed diagnosis of dyslexia with all other candidates in the Applied Knowledge Test (AKT) of the Membership of the Royal College of General Practitioners licensing examination.
Study design We used routinely collected data from candidates who took the AKT on one or more occasions between 2010 and 2015. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse performance of candidates who declared dyslexia with all other candidates, adjusting for candidate characteristics known to be associated with examination success including age, sex, ethnicity, country of primary medical qualification, stage of training, number of attempts and time spent completing the test.
Results The analysis included data from 14 examinations involving 14 801 candidates of which 2.6% (379/14 801) declared dyslexia. The pass rate for candidates who declared dyslexia was 83.6% compared with 95.0% for other candidates. After adjusting for covariates linked to examination success including age, sex, ethnicity, country of primary medical qualification, stage of training, number of attempts and time spent completing the test dyslexia was not significantly associated with pass rates in the AKT. Candidates declaring dyslexia after initially failing the AKT were more likely to have a primary medical qualification outside the UK.
Conclusions Performance was similar in AKT candidates disclosing dyslexia with other candidates once covariates associated with examination success were adjusted for. Candidates declaring dyslexia after initially failing the AKT were more likely to have a primary medical qualification outside the UK.
- postgraduate medical education
- general practice
- medical licensing
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors ANS led the study, was responsible for the initial design and supervised the analysis carried out by ZBA. The initial draft of the paper was written by ZBA and ANS. All the remaining authors (CE, JR, JL, AS, KAN, DS, CB) contributed to the conception and design of the study, revision and final approval of the paper. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the accuracy and integrity of the study.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Lincoln School of Health and Social Care.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.