The scoring of trainee performance in stations
In each station, an assessor will score the trainee’s response to the scenario using a pre-defined set of criteria for the station. Assessors will also provide a global rating for the trainee, which is their professional judgement of the overall performance of the trainee in response to the scenario. Each station will have its own pass mark. The process for determining station pass marks is outlined further below.
Determining an overall outcome for the assessment
Trainees are required to pass at least 5 of the 7 stations in the assessment and must pass at least 3 of the specialist stations and 1 of the core stations. Trainees therefore do not need to pass every station to achieve the minimum threshold required to be successful in the assessment.
Trainees who receive a fail outcome in the assessment will have an opportunity to re-sit, according to the terms outlined in the Assessment Regulations.
How are station pass marks determined?
Following feedback from stakeholders and review of all 2025 assessment data, the School has refined the standard setting process for 2026 and will utilise the Borderline Group Average (BGA) instead of the Borderline Regression Methodology (BRM). The pass marks for individual stations will be determined by establishing the Borderline Group Average for each station. This is a standard setting method widely used in exams for trainees in many healthcare professions and uses expert assessor judgments of ‘borderline’ candidates to determine a station’s pass mark. BGA is examinee- or trainee-centred because it derives pass marks from actual trainee performance across stations with different degrees of difficulty.
Some key features and benefits of using the Borderline Group Average are:
- It is evidence-based, reflecting actual performance
BGA uses actual trainee performance data and assessor judgments to derive pass marks.
- It generates station-specific pass marks
Since the pass mark for each station is based upon actual trainee performance data and assessor judgements, each station will have its own specific pass mark, reflecting differences in difficulty.
- It combines quantitative and qualitative data
BGA integrates station-specific criteria or checklist scores (quantitative) with overall assessor global rating judgements (qualitative), to provide a more holistic view of trainee performance.
- It is influenced by expert assessor judgments of minimal competence
Since BGA anchors pass marks around the performance of ‘Borderline’ candidates, it aligns pass and fail outcomes with assessors’ understanding of minimal competence.
- It can reduce subjectivity and bias
BGA can reduce the influence of extreme judgments and derives a pass mark from actual performance trends across a cohort rather than a hypothetical standard that is set independently of the assessment event.
In all cases, Lead Assessors will be invited to discuss the outcomes with the School in order to confirm and refine the acceptability of this approach as it applies to individual candidates. This process enables expert review of assessor judgements and consideration of how to systematically determine a cut-score in situations where BGA may not be practicable (for example, where there are no ‘Borderline’ outcome judgements within a given station). This process is reported to the Examination Board to ensure consistency within and between scientific specialties and enable a fair and defensible outcome decision to be recorded and subsequently communicated to the trainees.