Scoring
OverviewHow do I interpret my MCCQE Part II total score?
How is an OSCE station scored?
The Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part II (MCCQE Part II) is scored independently of the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part I (MCCQE Part I); the scores are not combined for the purpose of awarding the Licentiate of the Medical Council of Canada (LMCC). The candidate must pass both the MCCQE Part I and Part II.
Objectivity of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is achieved through the use of standardized guidelines for the administration of the examination, the training of physician examiners and of standardized patients, and the use of predetermined station-specific scoring instruments. OSCE scores are awarded to a candidate by physician examiners on the basis of the candidate’s performance at each station. Each station is worth the same as every other station and a candidate’s total score is the sum of his or her station scores.
A candidate must achieve an overall score and pass a set number of stations as determined by the Central Examination Committee (CEC). These cut points may vary from year to year and from examination to examination, depending on the difficulty and content of the particular examination. Historically, the percentage of stations required to pass the examination has been 64 per cent. Candidates cannot compensate for low performance on most stations with high scores in a few stations, nor can they compensate for a low overall performance by passing just enough stations.
In awarding the final standing on the examination, the CEC also considers any observations made by the physician examiner at each of the stations with regard to a candidate’s approach to the patient. Candidates are expected to demonstrate ethical and professional behaviour appropriate for a physician entering independent practice.
How do I interpret my MCCQE Part II total score?
MCC examination scores are reported in a standard-score format, which are distributions scaled to have a predetermined mean and/or standard deviation. A candidate’s pass/fail standing is based on where his or her standard score falls in relation to the pass/fail mark established for the examination. A candidate’s performance is judged in relation to the pass score for the examination and not judged on how well other individuals have performed on the examination. Candidates can, however, compare their performance to other candidates’ because standard scores also provide information on where a candidate stands in relation to other candidates.
The MCCQE Part II results are reported on a standard score scale that ranges from 50 to 950. The mean or average score for the examination is 500 and the standard deviation is 100. The pass mark may vary and is set for each administration of the examination.
To compare your score to other candidates’ scores, please refer to the graphical representation of scores below. This figure also shows the relationship between MCCQE Part II standard scores and other commonly used scores such as percentiles and Z scores.
(Adapted from F.G. Brown. Principles of Educational and Psychological Testing. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press Inc., 1970)
A score of 500 on the MCCQE Part II falls at the 50th percentile meaning that half of the people who attempted the MCCQE Part II scored higher and half scored lower. A score of 400 falls at the 15.9th percentile meaning that 15.9 per cent of candidates who took the examination scored below that mark and 84.1 per cent of candidates scored above it. A score of 600 falls at the 84.1th percentile meaning that 84.1 per cent of candidates who took the examination scored below that mark and 15.9 per cent of candidates scored above it.
Candidates will be provided additional supplemental feedback on their examination performance through their MCC-Online account starting with the results from 2010 examinations. The MCC has prepared a help file to assist candidates in interpreting their MCCQE Part II online supplemental feedback report.
How is an OSCE station scored?
The OSCE stations are scored using a checklist of tasks entitled an Examiner’s checklist (for examples of the checklist, see the history-taking couplet station example, the physical examination couplet station example and the ten-minute station example). Each task-specific item on the checklist is weighted, meaning that some items are worth more than other items. The examiners are not given the weight for the items and do not know the pass mark for the station.
In the case of the couplet stations, the candidate is also scored based on his or her answers in the Post-Encounter Probe. These five-minute written encounters are worth 50 per cent of the score at the couplet station. Physicians score candidates' answers following the examination. For examples of the Post-Encounter Probe questions and the correct answers, click on Post-Encounter Probe (history-taking station) or on Post-Encounter Probe (physical examination station).
In almost all stations, the examiner also scores selected rating scale items related to the quality of your interactions with the patient. For example, the examiner may be rating the candidate on “Questioning Skills” and/or “Organization of Physical Examination” and/or “Rapport with Person”. The rating scale score is worth 10 to 50 per cent of the station score. Click here to view the rating scale items.
In addition, for each station, the physician examiner is asked to make a global assessment of a candidate’s performance at the station at the end of the patient encounter and on each Post-Encounter Probe.
The first question asked of examiners is:
Did the candidate respond satisfactorily to the needs or problem(s) presented by this patient?
If the examiner believes that the candidate performed in a satisfactory manner, he or she then must determine whether the performance was “borderline”, “good” or “excellent”. Similarly, if the examiner believes that the candidate performed in an unsatisfactory manner, he or she must determine whether the performance was “borderline”, “poor” or “inferior”.
The following definitions are the guidelines given to examiners:
Satisfactory
“Satisfactory” candidates sufficiently possess and are able to demonstrate the knowledge, skills and attitudes that all physicians are expected to have as they enter independent medical practice. They must be able to practise medicine in a safe, efficient and caring manner. |
Unsatisfactory
“Unsatisfactory” candidates do not sufficiently possess the knowledge, skills or attitudes that all physicians are expected to have as they enter independent medical practice. These candidates demonstrate one or more of the following problems: provide misinformation, perform potentially dangerous act(s), have inadequate medical knowledge, have an uncaring attitude toward patient needs, are unable to focus in on the patient's problem, are poor communicators, and/or are unable to address the patient’s complaint. |
The results of the global assessment for each station are used to determine the station’s passing standard that is then used to determine each candidate's pass/fail status for each station, as well as overall status on this examination.
The second question asked of examiners is:
Do you have concerns regarding this candidate’s ethical and/or professional behavior at this station?
Yes or No.
If yes, please specify reasons:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
A response in the affirmative to this question leads to a review of the candidate’s performance overall by the OSCE Test Committee and the CEC on an individual basis where warranted.
