Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T10:13:38.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Correction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an open-access article published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2016

As an early member of the Association of Psychiatrists in Training, which was founded to support the changes involved in the new College structure, I would like to comment on the paper by Hughes and colleagues Reference Hughes, Haselgrove, Tovey, Khokhar, Husain and Osman-Hicks1 as well as the issues raised by Shields. Reference Shields2

Measuring trainees' competence before considering them competent to practise in an unsupervised and leadership role is eminently reasonable. However, it should be understood that such an examination should essentially be a measure of the training programme rather than the individual competence of the trainee. This is not to say that the competence of the trainee is not important, but that the exit examination should not function as a selection criterion. It is simply not fair to allow a trainee who does not have the potential competence to successfully work as a consultant – and this would seem to particularly involve clinical and communication skills – to devote fruitless years to training. For various reasons, candidates considered suitable initially may at a later stage demonstrate problems that preclude a successful transition to a consultant career. Nevertheless, the main selection point should be early enough to allow those regarded as less suitable to pursue alternative areas of medicine for which they may be better fitted.

Thus, while the final examinations should be rigorous, they should focus on more specific areas of knowledge and the expected pass rate of properly trained candidates should be very high. I would also note that the reliability quoted by Burn & Bowie Reference Burn and Bowie3 simply represents a correlation between test items and apart from making the assumption that the results represent interval, rather than ordinal data, says nothing about validity.

References

1 Hughes, NS Haselgrove, A Tovey, MS Khokhar, WA Husain, M Osman-Hicks, VC. Exit examination: a survey of UK psychiatrists' views. BJPsych Bull 2015; 39: 254-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Shields, GS. Raising the standard: it's time to review the MRCPsych examinations. BJPsych Bull 2015; 39: 262 Google Scholar
3 Burn, W Bowie, P. Raising the standard: it's time to review the MRCPsych examinations. The Royal College of Psychiatrists' response. BJPsych Bull 2015; 39: 262-3.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.