Does the Intercollegiate Specialty Examination in Urology (FRCS Urol) Assess the Breadth of the Urology Syllabus?

Abstract

Introduction: In January 2007, the Intercollegiate Specialty Board in Urology introduced its new two-part examination in urology (FRCS Urol). The new examination utilised validated tools, underpinned by a precise curriculum for the specialty, which facilitated the knowledge assessment of individuals wishing to gain entry to the Specialist Register for independent practice in urology. This study assesses whether the content of Sections 1 and 2 of the new examination covers the breadth of the ISCP curriculum in urology and secondly whether candidates find the examination acceptable. Methods: The six diets of the examination between January 2007 and November 2009 were studied. The content of the curriculum for urological training was analysed, as were the knowledge domains tested by the examination. Comparisons were made to correlate the effectiveness of the examination in testing various aspects of the syllabus. Subjective exit questionnaires were obtained from candidates sitting both sections of the examination. These were analysed for candidates' views about the organisation of the examinations, its coverage, appropriateness of standard and relevance to clinical practice. Results: There was a high level of concordance between the examination and the content of the curriculum although there was some disparity in the balance of the topics tested which might require fine-tuning. 86% of all candidates returned exit questionnaires with >90% agreeing that the examination was a fair test of knowledge. There was less agreement about the relevance of the MCQ paper to clinical practice. Conclusion: The post-2006 FRCS (Urol) examination is accepted as a fair test of urological knowledge by the vast majority of candidates presenting for this assessment. It also fulfils the requirements stipulated by Postgraduate Medical Education Training Board (PMETB) now General Medical Council (GMC) — Postgraduate Board for accreditation of training in the UK and Ireland. The examination is educationally valid although minor mismatches between the curriculum content and the topic areas tested would benefit from utilisation of an examination blueprint.