The undergraduate external examination process and the perceptions of examiners at the physiotherapy departments in South Africa.
Mokgobadibe V Ntsiea, Karien Mostert, Adnil Titus and 5 others
PMID 42428519WHAT IT FOUND
A survey of 28 South African physiotherapy academics found all third- and fourth-year students are externally examined, but the specific processes, mark-discrepancy thresholds, and examiner expectations differ between the five universities that responded.
Key findings
01All third- and fourth-year physiotherapy students at the five responding universities were externally examined, and four of the five used a combination of formative and summative assessment methods.
02The threshold for a 'significant difference' in theory marks varied across universities: one used 4 marks, two used 10 marks, and two did not specify a threshold.
03Before theory examinations, external examiners expected to receive the question paper (100%), memoranda (96%), and logistics information (92%).
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 5 of the 8 South African universities provided department-level process data, so the picture is incomplete. The questionnaire was self-developed and content-validated but no reliability was tested. The detailed contents of external examiners' written reports were not collected, so the quality and consistency of feedback cannot be assessed. The sample of 28 academics is small and all were from South Africa, limiting generalisability. This is a descriptive survey: it reports what is done, not whether any approach produces better outcomes or higher-quality graduates.
Declared interests
The authors state the research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No other conflicts of interest are declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the variation in processes (for example, a 4-mark versus a 10-mark threshold for a 'significant difference') as evidence that one approach is better than another. This is a descriptive survey of what five universities do; it does not compare student outcomes, assessor accuracy, or programme quality across the different methods.