1. Candidate Appeals in a high stakes postgraduate examination
Simon Newell
Officer for Examinations, RCPCH
Lance Lee
Assessment and Training, RCPCH
Daniel Crane
Lucy Davis
Psychometrics , RCPCH
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

2. MRCPCH Certified Completion of Training Level 3 training Level 2
ST3
ST2
ST1
Foundation
Medical school

3. The MRCPCH Clinical - Examination circuit
Communication
History taking and Management Planning 3
Video Scenario 4 1 2
Clear Pass Pass Bare Fail Clear Fail Unacceptable
Pass Mark 100
Child Development 10
Musculo-
Skeletal 9
Clinical: Neurology 8
Clinical: Respiratory 7
Clinical:
Abdomen 6
Clinical: CVS 5

4. Appeal Process open to all candidates appeals panel documentation
marksheets
letter of appeal
£200 (€ 280)
appeals panel
documentation
audit
high level panel
appeals panel review station of appeal and all others
marks up or down

5. Appeals are increasing
3 years
4157 candidates
9 clinical examinations
462 candidates/exam (range )
133 appeals
2.0%
4.9%
2.6%
(p < 0.01)

6. Station of Appeal (n = 274)

7. Basis of Appeal Borderline: 96 or 98 (pass 100)
Grade dispute: 236 (86%)
Other reasons: 38 (14%)
logistics (18)
video (10)
examiner conduct (3)
patient (3)
role player (2)
candidate personal (2)
logistics notes missing 8; timing 7; final grade calc 3
examiner conduct not interested; number of examiners; disturbed by colleague
patient hesitant X 2 and child who was blind in one eye
candidate personal Em CS Wife; Mo neurosurgery – free go.
video: nearly all rubbish

8. Outcome of Appeals successful appeal (9) pass candidate
judgement (6)
examiner transcription error (2)
hesitant child (1)
pass candidate
compassionate: fee waived
deferral waived
121/133 (91%) no change or marked down

9. Successful Appeals
9 %
8 %
0 %
(p < 0.01)

10. Appeals summary 133 appeals in 9 diets increase in number of appeals
70% borderline
appeals on pass grades
7 % successful

11. Appeals: lessons learned
open, transparent, fair system
feedback to candidates
audit
fee does not dissuade appeal
examiner documentation
If you do not justify the mark …
… someone will question it.