{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034102306920762285, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013039117352056168, 'mean_word_length': 5.438709677419355, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Marking identifiable scripts: following up student concerns

Introduction: Medical student concern that the submission of named examination scripts to examiners could cause bias initiated a study on the effect of identified and de‐identified scripts on assessment outcome. Methods: Data were collected from a convenience examination sample of Year 1 (n = 88 students; n = 29 questions) and Year 2 scripts (n = 75 students; n = 27 questions). Scripts were randomised for presentation to examiners with or without identification for all of a given student's work. Assessment outcomes, by year and marking condition, were a non‐normal distribution. Results: Non‐parametric analysis determined that there were no systematic differences in assessment outcome under the two marking conditions (MW < 0.05). Conclusion: We continue for a range of pedagogical reasons to present identified papers to examiners. Importantly, this study also demonstrates a research‐led approach to resolving student queries.