Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research

MRCGP CSA: are the examiners biased, favouring their own by sex, ethnicity, and degree source?

Mei Ling Denney, Adrian Freeman and Richard Wakeford
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (616): e718-e725. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X674396
Mei Ling Denney
Roles: Clinical lead for research
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adrian Freeman
Roles: Senior lecturer in medical education
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Wakeford
Roles: CPsychol, Life Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Mean case scores (0–9 with 95% CI) of candidate subgroups by parallel examiner subgroups. BME = black and minority ethnic. IMG = international medical graduate. UKG = UK graduate.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Sample numbers, percentages and mean case scores of candidate, examiner subgroups, encounters in which examiner–candidate transaction demographics were the same, and where they were different

    Demographic variableCandidates in demographic subgroupExaminers in demographic subgroupCases with same transactional demographicCases with different transactional demographic
    EthnicityWhiten158621517 4333185
    Total, %39.485.733.56.1
    Mean6.676.036.676.66
    BMEn241436472126 661
    Total, %60.614.39.151.3
    Mean5.646.155.815.61
    SexFemalen204496992116 651
    Total, %51.138.219.132.0
    Mean6.386.086.396.37
    Malen195615516 1799249
    Total, %48.961.831.117.8
    Mean5.706.035.675.75
    Degree sourceUKGn222424127 4721440
    Total, %55.696.052.82.8
    Mean6.616.066.626.38
    IMGn17761098122 107
    Total, %44.44.01.942.5
    Mean5.355.845.045.36
    Totaln400025152 000
    Total, %100.0100.0100.0
    • BME = black and minority ethnic. IMG = international medical graduate. UKG = UK graduate.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Stepwise multiple regression of predictors of case score (0–9)

    ModelVariable enteredMultiple RR2R2 changeBβ95% CIF changeP-valueVariance explained
    1Candidate: UK/non-UK graduate0.3210.1030.103−0.955−0.244−0.993 to −0.9165965.41<0.00110.3%
    2Candidate: male/female0.3380.1140.0110.3780.0970.346 to 0.410669.72<0.0011.1%
    3Candidate: white/BME0.3480.1210.007−0.396−0.100−0.435 to −0.357395.29<0.0010.7%
    4Examiner: UK/non-UK graduate0.3490.1220.001−0.440−0.048−0.522 to −0.35953.84<0.0010.1%
    5Examiner: white/BME0.3510.1230.0010.2360.0430.187 to 0.28487.78<0.0010.1%
    6Examiner: male/female0.3510.1230.0000.0410.0100.008 to 0.0746.09<0.020<0.1%
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (616)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 616
November 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
MRCGP CSA: are the examiners biased, favouring their own by sex, ethnicity, and degree source?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
MRCGP CSA: are the examiners biased, favouring their own by sex, ethnicity, and degree source?
Mei Ling Denney, Adrian Freeman, Richard Wakeford
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (616): e718-e725. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X674396

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
MRCGP CSA: are the examiners biased, favouring their own by sex, ethnicity, and degree source?
Mei Ling Denney, Adrian Freeman, Richard Wakeford
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (616): e718-e725. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X674396
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHOD
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • educational measurement
  • foreign medical graduates
  • general practice
  • racism
  • sexism

More in this TOC Section

  • Prognostic factors for persistent fatigue after COVID-19: a prospective matched cohort study in primary care
  • Home monitoring by pulse oximetry of primary care patients with COVID-19: a pilot randomised controlled trial
  • Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions to improve mental health in deprived populations: a systematic review
Show more Research

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242