First-Pass vs Review Accuracy in Your EDAIC Qbank

First-pass accuracy describes your performance on questions you have not previously encountered in that resource. Review accuracy describes performance after exposure. Both can help your EDAIC preparation, but they answer different questions and should be labelled separately.

Neither is an official EDAIC mark. Question selection, familiarity, conditions and the bank's scoring rules affect the number. This article gives a practical record-keeping method, not a validated readiness calculator.

Define the unit being counted

Before comparing scores, check whether the resource counts whole questions or individual true-or-false statements. Also check how blanks, partial responses and repeated attempts are handled. A percentage without its denominator can be misleading even when calculated correctly.

The official Part I description identifies the multiple true/false format. A commercial platform may display additional learning metrics; read its labels instead of assuming every percentage follows the examination's reporting method.

Record the number correct and the number assessed when possible. “Eight out of ten” contains information that “80%” alone hides, particularly when the next set is much larger.

Keep three separate records

Use unfamiliar attempts, familiar review and corrected concepts. The first records what happened before you saw that resource's explanation. The second records later performance. The third records whether a previously weak idea can now be explained and used in a different prompt.

You can maintain these distinctions in a simple notebook if the platform does not provide them. Do not invent a first-pass measure from a mixed history whose attempt status you cannot establish; label that history as mixed.

Prior exposure elsewhere matters too. A question may be new to one platform while testing an example you remember from a book. Add a familiarity note rather than trying to make the record appear perfectly controlled.

Understand what a combined percentage hides

Consider an invented study record: 40 correct responses from 50 unfamiliar statements, followed later by 46 correct from the same 50 statements. The first attempt is 80%, the review is 92%, and combining them produces 86% across 100 attempts.

The arithmetic is valid, but 86% is not a score on 100 unfamiliar statements. It mixes different learning conditions. It also does not show whether the six newly correct answers came from reconstructed reasoning or remembered choices.

Keep the two results alongside each other. Add a separate note such as “can now explain four of the six corrected concepts; two still depend on remembering the answer”. That note helps choose the next review task.

Compare like with like cautiously

Within unfamiliar attempts, note the topic mix, source, use of notes and time conditions. A focused set completed immediately after reading differs from mixed practice completed without prompts. Do not compare those results as though the only changing variable were your ability.

Different commercial resources may vary in content and difficulty. Resist ranking your readiness by moving between banks until you find the most reassuring percentage. Instead, examine whether recurring mistakes are disappearing across different contexts.

Official sample material can help orient you to format. Find it through the ESAIC preparation page, and keep its result separate from other sets.

Use review accuracy for learning decisions

A high review result can be encouraging. Follow it with a short explanation check and an unfamiliar application. A low review result can identify an unresolved misconception, a poorly understood explanation or a prompt that requires source verification.

Evidence from a resident trial supports repeated testing with feedback as a learning activity. That is a reason to keep reviews in the plan, not to treat a high repeated-question score as a pass guarantee.

If a correct response is still a guess, retain the concept in review. If you can explain it reliably in a new context, move it toward maintenance without declaring the entire domain finished.

Make your next dashboard action concrete

At the end of a study block, record one unfamiliar-result observation, one recurring error and one corrected concept. Use those observations to choose the next task rather than repeatedly refreshing the overall average.

For a wider discussion of practice conditions, see the EDAIC mock-exam guide. Use the AnesCORE question bank with clear attempt labels, so your scores remain interpretable and your review time targets the concepts that still need work.

Sources

• Larsen et al.: Repeated testing improves long-term retention
• ESAIC: How to prepare for the exam
• ESAIC: Part I examination

Prepared with AI assistance for examination revision; this article is not a patient-care protocol or a substitute for current primary guidance. Sources checked 7 October 2026.