The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination: a review of the evidence

The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination is the professional qualification that is essential for career progression in clinical radiology within the UK. It is also important for career progression in many countries internationally. The FRCR has evolved and changed over...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical radiology 2018-12, Vol.73 (12), p.992-998
Hauptverfasser: Booth, T.C., Martins, R.deP.M., McKnight, L., Courtney, K., Malliwal, R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 998
container_issue 12
container_start_page 992
container_title Clinical radiology
container_volume 73
creator Booth, T.C.
Martins, R.deP.M.
McKnight, L.
Courtney, K.
Malliwal, R.
description The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination is the professional qualification that is essential for career progression in clinical radiology within the UK. It is also important for career progression in many countries internationally. The FRCR has evolved and changed over the last decade. In this systematic review we appraise and summarise the available data relating to the FRCR emphasising the published evidence regarding the validity, reliability, and acceptability of this examination. Comparison is made to other equivalent medical examinations, as well as a more recently published commissioned external review of the FRCR examinations. The Clinical Radiology Part 2B (CR2B) examination in its pre-existing format is reliable, valid, and acceptable. Recommendations from the commissioned external review are based primarily on expert opinion, with a limited evidence base comprising data from a small sample acquired during a single examination sitting and without peer review. Unlike the CR2B examination, there is little evidence regarding assessment of the CR1 and CR2 examinations. Both the CR1 and CR2 examinations are currently in the process of undergoing major changes to their formats. Blueprinting items to the curriculum might improve acceptability. Other changes may improve transparency and reliability of these assessments. Our analysis and many aspects of the external review may provide pointers regarding how the upcoming data produced by the “automated” FRCR examinations can be further analysed to provide a more robust evaluation. •The CR2B examination in its pre-existing format is reliable, valid and acceptable.•Recommendations from a RCR-commissioned external review are based primarily on expert opinion, with limited evidence base.•Unlike the CR2B, there is little evidence regarding assessment of the CR1 and CR2.•Blueprinting items to the curriculum might improve acceptability.•Future data produced by the “automated” FRCR examinations can be further analysed to provide a more robust evaluation.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.crad.2018.09.005
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6506684</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0009926018305403</els_id><sourcerecordid>2120754870</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-204aaece7dc36bd452c5ab964ec5aa2ae64d90b9298bb275270f6d342d6a5e793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFvEzEQhS0EoqHwBzigPZbDLrNe2xsjVAlFBJAqIUVF4mZm7UniaLMO9qal_x6v0lZw4TSa8Zvn0fsYe11DVUOt3u0qG9FVHOp5BboCkE_YrG6ULDnXP56yGQDoUnMFZ-xFSrupFVw8Z2cNNJy3oGbs5_WWiiX1fbhNW38owroY82QV7rAvFqHvaUPTcIXOhz5sfBpTcbFcLVZvC_qNez_g6MPwvsAi0o2n2weH3DgaLL1kz9bYJ3p1X8_Z9-Wn68WX8urb56-Lj1elFVKOJQeBSJZaZxvVOSG5ldhpJShX5EhKOA2d5nredbyV-fq1co3gTqGkVjfn7PLkezh2e3KWhjFibw7R7zHemYDe_Psy-K3ZhBujJCg1F9ng4t4ghl9HSqPZ-2RzMjhQOCbDaw6tFPMWspSfpDaGlCKtH7-pwUxozM5MaMyExoA2GU1eevP3gY8rDyyy4MNJQDmmHGU0yfopQucj2dG44P_n_wfpE6DI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2120754870</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination: a review of the evidence</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Booth, T.C. ; Martins, R.deP.M. ; McKnight, L. ; Courtney, K. ; Malliwal, R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Booth, T.C. ; Martins, R.deP.M. ; McKnight, L. ; Courtney, K. ; Malliwal, R.</creatorcontrib><description>The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination is the professional qualification that is essential for career progression in clinical radiology within the UK. It is also important for career progression in many countries internationally. The FRCR has evolved and changed over the last decade. In this systematic review we appraise and summarise the available data relating to the FRCR emphasising the published evidence regarding the validity, reliability, and acceptability of this examination. Comparison is made to other equivalent medical examinations, as well as a more recently published commissioned external review of the FRCR examinations. The Clinical Radiology Part 2B (CR2B) examination in its pre-existing format is reliable, valid, and acceptable. Recommendations from the commissioned external review are based primarily on expert opinion, with a limited evidence base comprising data from a small sample acquired during a single examination sitting and without peer review. Unlike the CR2B examination, there is little evidence regarding assessment of the CR1 and CR2 examinations. Both the CR1 and CR2 examinations are currently in the process of undergoing major changes to their formats. Blueprinting items to the curriculum might improve acceptability. Other changes may improve transparency and reliability of these assessments. Our analysis and many aspects of the external review may provide pointers regarding how the upcoming data produced by the “automated” FRCR examinations can be further analysed to provide a more robust evaluation. •The CR2B examination in its pre-existing format is reliable, valid and acceptable.•Recommendations from a RCR-commissioned external review are based primarily on expert opinion, with limited evidence base.•Unlike the CR2B, there is little evidence regarding assessment of the CR1 and CR2.•Blueprinting items to the curriculum might improve acceptability.•Future data produced by the “automated” FRCR examinations can be further analysed to provide a more robust evaluation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-9260</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-229X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.09.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30322706</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Clinical Competence - standards ; Curriculum ; Educational Measurement ; Fellowships and Scholarships ; Humans ; Radiologists - education ; Radiologists - standards ; Radiology - education ; Radiology - standards ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Clinical radiology, 2018-12, Vol.73 (12), p.992-998</ispartof><rights>2018 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2018 The Authors 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-204aaece7dc36bd452c5ab964ec5aa2ae64d90b9298bb275270f6d342d6a5e793</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-204aaece7dc36bd452c5ab964ec5aa2ae64d90b9298bb275270f6d342d6a5e793</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.09.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30322706$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Booth, T.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martins, R.deP.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKnight, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Courtney, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malliwal, R.</creatorcontrib><title>The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination: a review of the evidence</title><title>Clinical radiology</title><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><description>The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination is the professional qualification that is essential for career progression in clinical radiology within the UK. It is also important for career progression in many countries internationally. The FRCR has evolved and changed over the last decade. In this systematic review we appraise and summarise the available data relating to the FRCR emphasising the published evidence regarding the validity, reliability, and acceptability of this examination. Comparison is made to other equivalent medical examinations, as well as a more recently published commissioned external review of the FRCR examinations. The Clinical Radiology Part 2B (CR2B) examination in its pre-existing format is reliable, valid, and acceptable. Recommendations from the commissioned external review are based primarily on expert opinion, with a limited evidence base comprising data from a small sample acquired during a single examination sitting and without peer review. Unlike the CR2B examination, there is little evidence regarding assessment of the CR1 and CR2 examinations. Both the CR1 and CR2 examinations are currently in the process of undergoing major changes to their formats. Blueprinting items to the curriculum might improve acceptability. Other changes may improve transparency and reliability of these assessments. Our analysis and many aspects of the external review may provide pointers regarding how the upcoming data produced by the “automated” FRCR examinations can be further analysed to provide a more robust evaluation. •The CR2B examination in its pre-existing format is reliable, valid and acceptable.•Recommendations from a RCR-commissioned external review are based primarily on expert opinion, with limited evidence base.•Unlike the CR2B, there is little evidence regarding assessment of the CR1 and CR2.•Blueprinting items to the curriculum might improve acceptability.•Future data produced by the “automated” FRCR examinations can be further analysed to provide a more robust evaluation.</description><subject>Clinical Competence - standards</subject><subject>Curriculum</subject><subject>Educational Measurement</subject><subject>Fellowships and Scholarships</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Radiologists - education</subject><subject>Radiologists - standards</subject><subject>Radiology - education</subject><subject>Radiology - standards</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0009-9260</issn><issn>1365-229X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFvEzEQhS0EoqHwBzigPZbDLrNe2xsjVAlFBJAqIUVF4mZm7UniaLMO9qal_x6v0lZw4TSa8Zvn0fsYe11DVUOt3u0qG9FVHOp5BboCkE_YrG6ULDnXP56yGQDoUnMFZ-xFSrupFVw8Z2cNNJy3oGbs5_WWiiX1fbhNW38owroY82QV7rAvFqHvaUPTcIXOhz5sfBpTcbFcLVZvC_qNez_g6MPwvsAi0o2n2weH3DgaLL1kz9bYJ3p1X8_Z9-Wn68WX8urb56-Lj1elFVKOJQeBSJZaZxvVOSG5ldhpJShX5EhKOA2d5nredbyV-fq1co3gTqGkVjfn7PLkezh2e3KWhjFibw7R7zHemYDe_Psy-K3ZhBujJCg1F9ng4t4ghl9HSqPZ-2RzMjhQOCbDaw6tFPMWspSfpDaGlCKtH7-pwUxozM5MaMyExoA2GU1eevP3gY8rDyyy4MNJQDmmHGU0yfopQucj2dG44P_n_wfpE6DI</recordid><startdate>201812</startdate><enddate>201812</enddate><creator>Booth, T.C.</creator><creator>Martins, R.deP.M.</creator><creator>McKnight, L.</creator><creator>Courtney, K.</creator><creator>Malliwal, R.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201812</creationdate><title>The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination: a review of the evidence</title><author>Booth, T.C. ; Martins, R.deP.M. ; McKnight, L. ; Courtney, K. ; Malliwal, R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c455t-204aaece7dc36bd452c5ab964ec5aa2ae64d90b9298bb275270f6d342d6a5e793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Clinical Competence - standards</topic><topic>Curriculum</topic><topic>Educational Measurement</topic><topic>Fellowships and Scholarships</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Radiologists - education</topic><topic>Radiologists - standards</topic><topic>Radiology - education</topic><topic>Radiology - standards</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Booth, T.C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martins, R.deP.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McKnight, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Courtney, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malliwal, R.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Booth, T.C.</au><au>Martins, R.deP.M.</au><au>McKnight, L.</au><au>Courtney, K.</au><au>Malliwal, R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination: a review of the evidence</atitle><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><date>2018-12</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>992</spage><epage>998</epage><pages>992-998</pages><issn>0009-9260</issn><eissn>1365-229X</eissn><abstract>The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination is the professional qualification that is essential for career progression in clinical radiology within the UK. It is also important for career progression in many countries internationally. The FRCR has evolved and changed over the last decade. In this systematic review we appraise and summarise the available data relating to the FRCR emphasising the published evidence regarding the validity, reliability, and acceptability of this examination. Comparison is made to other equivalent medical examinations, as well as a more recently published commissioned external review of the FRCR examinations. The Clinical Radiology Part 2B (CR2B) examination in its pre-existing format is reliable, valid, and acceptable. Recommendations from the commissioned external review are based primarily on expert opinion, with a limited evidence base comprising data from a small sample acquired during a single examination sitting and without peer review. Unlike the CR2B examination, there is little evidence regarding assessment of the CR1 and CR2 examinations. Both the CR1 and CR2 examinations are currently in the process of undergoing major changes to their formats. Blueprinting items to the curriculum might improve acceptability. Other changes may improve transparency and reliability of these assessments. Our analysis and many aspects of the external review may provide pointers regarding how the upcoming data produced by the “automated” FRCR examinations can be further analysed to provide a more robust evaluation. •The CR2B examination in its pre-existing format is reliable, valid and acceptable.•Recommendations from a RCR-commissioned external review are based primarily on expert opinion, with limited evidence base.•Unlike the CR2B, there is little evidence regarding assessment of the CR1 and CR2.•Blueprinting items to the curriculum might improve acceptability.•Future data produced by the “automated” FRCR examinations can be further analysed to provide a more robust evaluation.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>30322706</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.crad.2018.09.005</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0009-9260
ispartof Clinical radiology, 2018-12, Vol.73 (12), p.992-998
issn 0009-9260
1365-229X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6506684
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Clinical Competence - standards
Curriculum
Educational Measurement
Fellowships and Scholarships
Humans
Radiologists - education
Radiologists - standards
Radiology - education
Radiology - standards
United Kingdom
title The Fellowship of the Royal College of Radiologists (FRCR) examination: a review of the evidence
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T21%3A03%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Fellowship%20of%20the%20Royal%20College%20of%20Radiologists%20(FRCR)%20examination:%20a%20review%20of%20the%20evidence&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20radiology&rft.au=Booth,%20T.C.&rft.date=2018-12&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=992&rft.epage=998&rft.pages=992-998&rft.issn=0009-9260&rft.eissn=1365-229X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.crad.2018.09.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2120754870%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2120754870&rft_id=info:pmid/30322706&rft_els_id=S0009926018305403&rfr_iscdi=true