An analysis of predictors of success in Part II MFPHM. Membership of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine.

BACKGROUND The examination for Part II of the Membership of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine (MFPHM) has been held since 1974. Candidates and examiners have hypothesized a number of factors as likely to increase the chances of success in the exam. This study formally investigates factors which may predict a candidate's success at their first attempt. METHODS Routinely available data on candidates sitting the exam from March 1996 to June 1999 were examined initially by univariate analysis. A logistic regression model was then constructed entering all variables identified as statistically significant as well as the following variables initially thought to be relevant (a priori hypotheses): age, sex, university versus NHS training location; splitting competencies evenly across two reports; and training within North Thames deanery. RESULTS Four factors were identified as statistically significant within the logistic regression model. These were: possession of either MRCP (odds ratio (OR) of failure = 0.33, p = 0.003) or MRCGP (OR = 0.45, p = 0.016), success at UK Part I at first attempt (OR = 0.42, p = 0.014), and North Thames training (OR = 0.44, p = 0.048). CONCLUSION Possession of MRCP or MRCGP, or passing UK Part I MFPHM are factors not normally open to change by candidates once they begin working towards Part II MFPHM. Training in North Thames was also identified as an independent predictor of success. It would seem advisable to investigate in further detail whether candidate selection (not adjusted for in the model) or aspects of the North Thames training programme are responsible for this observed phenomenon.

[1]  V. Wass,et al.  Oral examinations-equal opportunities, ethnicity, and fairness in the MRCGP. , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  Weingarten,et al.  Variations among examiners in family medicine residency board oral examinations , 2000, Medical education.

[3]  B. Jolly ‘The Professor has submitted her questions and thus we may proceed to set the examination paper’ , 2000, Medical education.

[4]  Codd,et al.  Gender differences in the results of the final medical examination at University College Dublin , 2000, Medical education.

[5]  N. Spike,et al.  Analysis by training status of performance in the certification examination for Australian family doctors , 1999, Medical education.

[6]  B. Winder,et al.  Grade predictions for school‐leaving examinations: do they predict anything? , 1998, Medical education.

[7]  S. Smith,et al.  How to pass the MRCP (UK) examination--ask a successful candidate! , 1998, Postgraduate medical journal.

[8]  A. Dugdale,et al.  Sex and examination results , 1997, The Lancet.

[9]  AG Acheson Do male medical students face prejudice? , 1997, The Lancet.

[10]  S. Donnan,et al.  Competencies for Part II of the examination for membership of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine. , 1997, Journal of public health medicine.

[11]  A. Rigby,et al.  Part I of Membership of the Faculty of Public Health Medicine (MFPHM). Trends over time and factors associated with success in recent years. , 1996, Journal of public health medicine.

[12]  M. Sanderson Survey of Candidates Taking the MRCP(UK) Part 2 Examination , 1996, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London.

[13]  B. Winder,et al.  Final examination performance of medical students from ethnic minorities , 1996, Medical education.

[14]  V. Wass,et al.  Improving oral examinations: selecting, training, and monitoring examiners for the MRCGP , 1995, BMJ.

[15]  J. Norcini Indicators of the educational effectiveness of subspecialty training programs in internal medicine , 1995, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[16]  R. Wakeford,et al.  MRCGP pass rate by medical school and region of postgraduate training. Royal College of General Practitioners. , 1993, BMJ.

[17]  D. Webster,et al.  Student selection: are the school‐leaving A‐level grades in biology and chemistry important? , 1993, Medical education.

[18]  R. Wakeford,et al.  Does the MRCGP examination discriminate against Asian doctors? , 1992, BMJ.

[19]  J. Price,et al.  Academic performance of students admitted after repeating entrance examinations to medical school , 1990, Medical education.

[20]  J. Carline,et al.  Academic, social and cultural factors influencing medical school grade performance , 1990, Medical education.

[21]  W. Montague,et al.  Academic selection criteria and subsequent performance , 1990, Medical education.

[22]  I C McManus,et al.  Prospective study of the disadvantage of people from ethnic minority groups applying to medical schools in the United Kingdom. , 1989, BMJ.

[23]  P. Fleming The profitability of ‘guessing’ in multiple choice question papers , 1988, Medical education.

[24]  I. McManus,et al.  Prospective survey of performance of medical students during preclinical years. , 1986, British medical journal.

[25]  D. Paintin,et al.  A comparison of the performance on three multiple choice question papers in obstetrics and gynaecology over a period of three years administered at five London medical schools , 1977, Medical education.

[26]  R. Tomlinson,et al.  A study of women students at King's College Hospital Medical School , 1976, Medical education.

[27]  L. J. Edouard,et al.  Linear study of medical undergraduate performance , 1976, Medical education.

[28]  R. Harden,et al.  Multiple choice questions: to guess or not to guess , 1976, Medical education.