AIM: To survey the views of recent candidates of the Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) 2B examination with reference to assessment validity, reliability, and acceptability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One thousand, two hundred and four UK radiology trainees and consultants were invited to complete an automated internet questionnaire regarding their experiences and perceptions of the FRCR 2B examination. The questionnaire was informed by a review of the literature. Eligible participants were candidates who had taken the examination within the previous 3 years. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-seven out of 1204 (41%) responses were received; of which 258/497 (52% of respondents) were eligible for inclusion into the study. The rapid reporting component is perceived to be significantly fairer than the oral section (82 versus 70% agree; p<0.001). The oral component fared poorly in perceived performance-reducing anxiety levels but well in questions relating to validity and reliability. Female candidates are more likely to find the FRCR 2B unfair (p=0.01) and experience performance-reducing anxiety (p<0.001) than males. No gender differences were observed in first-time pass rates (p=0.6). Candidate first language did not affect anxiety levels (p=0.9) or first-time pass rates (p=0.06). Only 12% of candidates agreed that the oral examination should move to an objective structured clinical format. CONCLUSION: Candidates score the FRCR 2B examination well in test validity with little desire for change to the oral examination format. Efforts to help reduce anxiety levels in the oral component would improve perceived fairness.
AIM: To survey the views of recent candidates of the Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) 2B examination with reference to assessment validity, reliability, and acceptability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One thousand, two hundred and four UK radiology trainees and consultants were invited to complete an automated internet questionnaire regarding their experiences and perceptions of the FRCR 2B examination. The questionnaire was informed by a review of the literature. Eligible participants were candidates who had taken the examination within the previous 3 years. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-seven out of 1204 (41%) responses were received; of which 258/497 (52% of respondents) were eligible for inclusion into the study. The rapid reporting component is perceived to be significantly fairer than the oral section (82 versus 70% agree; p<0.001). The oral component fared poorly in perceived performance-reducing anxiety levels but well in questions relating to validity and reliability. Female candidates are more likely to find the FRCR 2B unfair (p=0.01) and experience performance-reducing anxiety (p<0.001) than males. No gender differences were observed in first-time pass rates (p=0.6). Candidate first language did not affect anxiety levels (p=0.9) or first-time pass rates (p=0.06). Only 12% of candidates agreed that the oral examination should move to an objective structured clinical format. CONCLUSION: Candidates score the FRCR 2B examination well in test validity with little desire for change to the oral examination format. Efforts to help reduce anxiety levels in the oral component would improve perceived fairness.