What Mock Score Means You Are Ready for EDAIC?

There is no universal unofficial EDAIC mock test score that proves you are ready to pass Part I. A question-bank percentage and the official examination result are not interchangeable measurements.

ESAIC sets the pass mark for each Part I paper through its examination process. The published Diploma Guide explains that pass marks can vary because papers differ and because reference or discriminator questions are considered. Both Paper A and Paper B must be passed. A commercial mock cannot reproduce that standard-setting process, and no responsible provider can convert “72% in my bank” into a guaranteed result.

Your mock scores are still useful. Treat them as repeated clinical observations rather than a single diagnostic test: standardise the conditions, examine the trend, and interpret accuracy alongside coverage, timing, confidence and recurring errors. This guide gives you a readiness dashboard you can actually use.

Why one mock percentage cannot answer the question

A percentage looks objective, but its meaning depends on how it was produced.

Different questions have different difficulty

A set concentrated on familiar topics will overestimate readiness. A set with obscure, ambiguously written or outdated items can underestimate it. Even two well-written mocks from the same provider may not be equally difficult.

Repeated questions inflate performance

Once you recognise a stem or explanation, the next answer partly measures memory for that item. Repetition is valuable for learning, but a repeat-set score is not an independent readiness estimate.

Small sets are noisy

Ten questions can reveal a misconception, but they provide a volatile percentage. A few changed answers can move the result dramatically. Longer, blueprint-balanced samples taken on separate days give a more stable picture.

Conditions change the construct

Untimed work with notes open measures supported learning. A timed, closed-book mock measures retrieval and pacing under different conditions. Both have a purpose, but they should not be plotted on the same trend line without a label.

A bank is not the live examination

Original practice questions can mirror the multiple true/false decision and map to the official domains, but they do not know the live items, annual paper difficulty or official pass marks. AnesCORE is independent of and not endorsed by ESAIC.

For the official scoring principles and the need to pass both papers, read the current ESAIC Diploma Guide and our EDAIC marking and scoring guide.

What the official documents actually say

Part I comprises Paper A and Paper B. In the official multiple true/false structure, each question has five statements. The Diploma Guide describes a positive mark for each correct response, with no mark for an incorrect or blank response. Current instructions for your sitting should govern how you answer and navigate.

Crucially, ESAIC does not publish a fixed permanent pass percentage in the Diploma Guide. It explains that the Examinations Committee sets pass marks with regard to the standard of the paper and performance on reference questions. The agreed marks are final, and both papers must be passed.

Therefore:

• do not adopt a forum percentage as an official threshold;
• do not average strong Paper A and weak Paper B performance into false reassurance;
• do not treat a qbank's “mastery” number as an ESAIC decision;
• do use repeated, unseen, balanced mocks to expose risk before exam day.

If an admission letter or current regulation differs from an older guide, follow the current official instruction.

The six-part readiness dashboard

Use six measures together. None should stand alone.

1. Accuracy trend

Track accuracy on unseen, mixed, closed-book sets separately from learning-mode questions. Use a rolling series—such as your last four comparable sessions—rather than the best result you have ever achieved.

Ask:

• Is the trend rising, flat or falling?
• How wide is the swing between sessions?
• Does performance hold after a difficult on-call week?
• Are recent gains present on new wording?

Stability matters. A candidate alternating between very strong and very weak sets needs to understand the source of the variation before declaring readiness.

2. Syllabus coverage

High accuracy across a narrow slice is not broad readiness. Record which official domains each set samples and how recently you have retrieved them. Coverage should include Paper A basic sciences and Paper B clinical and intensive-care domains at the level set out in current official documents.

Use the EDAIC syllabus breakdown to organise your map, then verify it against ESAIC. A domain is not covered merely because you read a chapter; require at least one retrieval attempt and a reasonable volume of original statements.

3. Error recurrence

Count the proportion of errors that repeat a known misconception or process failure. A new error in an unfamiliar corner is different from making the same acid–base, pharmacokinetic or wording error for the fourth time.

Classify each miss:

• knowledge gap;
• relationship or mechanism not understood;
• qualifier missed;
• overgeneralisation;
• old rule or source;
• answer changed without evidence;
• time-pressure decision;
• guess that happened to be wrong.

The best sign is not “zero errors”. It is that important errors are identified, corrected from a reliable source and no longer recur when the concept is phrased differently.

4. Timing and completion

Measure whether you can maintain accuracy across the full intended duration, not only in the first block. Record:

• completion within the current format's time;
• time remaining at planned checkpoints;
• items left unreviewed;
• late changes from correct to incorrect;
• concentration drop by segment;
• navigation or answer-transfer problems.

The official duration differs by delivery format in the published Guide, so build mocks from the instructions for your sitting. The Part I mock exam guide provides a structure for progressive simulation.

5. Paper A and Paper B balance

Keep two separate dashboards. Passing performance must not depend on one paper compensating psychologically for the other.

For each paper, display:

• unseen accuracy trend;
• domains sampled;
• recurring-error count;
• median time per statement or checkpoint;
• confidence calibration;
• last full simulation.

Then prioritise the weaker paper without abandoning the stronger one. Maintenance questions prevent a temporary gain in one area from producing decay elsewhere.

6. Confidence calibration

Before viewing an explanation, rate each answer:

• high confidence — I can justify the answer and qualifier;
• medium confidence — I favour this answer but cannot fully explain it;
• low confidence — I am guessing or recognising wording.

Compare confidence with correctness. High-confidence errors are particularly important because they represent a misconception you may not spontaneously revisit. Low-confidence correct answers are not yet reliable. A readiness score that ignores both can look better than the knowledge underneath it.

A copyable weekly dashboard

Use one row for each comparable timed set:

At the end of the week, add four short conclusions:

1. Signal: What improved on unseen material?
2. Risk: Which paper or domain is least stable?
3. Recurrence: Which error returned?
4. Action: What will be retrieved and retested next week?

Avoid building a dashboard so elaborate that updating it replaces studying. Five minutes after a set is enough when the fields are consistent.

How to make mock scores comparable

A trend is only meaningful when the measurement process is reasonably stable.

Define two modes

Learning mode: shorter sets, immediate explanations, optional reference checking after an answer. Use this to repair knowledge.

Measurement mode: unseen questions, closed book, mixed domains, fixed timing and explanations hidden until the end. Use this to estimate current independent performance.

Never criticise a learning-mode score for being low. Its job is to find what to teach next.

Fix the denominator

EDAIC MTF questions contain multiple independently judged statements. Ensure your platform's displayed percentage is clear: is it based on statements, complete question stems or another scoring rule? Compare like with like.

Separate first attempts

Tag first-seen questions. Review repeats for learning, but calculate the primary readiness trend from first attempts or sufficiently transformed transfer questions.

Sample the blueprint

Use a coverage table so that consecutive mocks do not accidentally repeat the same comfortable subjects. The Paper A and Paper B format guide can orient the split; ESAIC's current Guide remains definitive.

Keep the environment honest

Record interruptions, post-call fatigue, open tabs and paused timers. Do not delete a poor session merely because the result is uncomfortable. Label it and decide whether it reflects knowledge, conditions or both.

Three stages of mock use

Stage 1: diagnostic

Early in preparation, take a manageable mixed set. The goal is not to “pass” the mock. Identify broad gaps, unfamiliar MTF mechanics and differences between perceived and actual knowledge.

Use the result to build a realistic EDAIC study plan, not to predict the final exam months ahead.

Stage 2: development

Alternate focused learning with mixed retrieval. After repairing one domain, revisit it through new statements several days later. Include older domains so that progress is not achieved through short-term cramming.

ESAIC's learning guidance recommends active recall, spacing and interleaving. Retrieval research also shows that testing can strengthen later retention compared with repeated study, particularly when feedback closes the loop.

Try 10 EDAIC questions free — no card required. Use the first set as a diagnostic, not as a verdict.

Stage 3: simulation

Closer to the examination, complete full or substantial timed mocks under controlled conditions. The purpose is to test the system:

• food, sleep and start time;
• pacing checkpoints;
• handling uncertainty;
• sustained focus;
• Paper A/Paper B recovery;
• review and answer-submission routine.

Leave enough time between simulations to repair the findings. Taking mock after mock without analysis merely measures the same weaknesses repeatedly.

A traffic-light readiness review

Instead of choosing an invented pass percentage, apply a rule to each dashboard dimension.

Green

• comparable unseen-set performance is stable or improving;
• both papers have broad recent coverage;
• recurring errors are uncommon and corrected;
• timed work is completed without a late accuracy collapse;
• high-confidence errors are actively falling;
• you can explain why answers are right or wrong.

Amber

• overall accuracy looks acceptable but one paper is volatile;
• several domains have not been retrieved recently;
• timing works only on shorter blocks;
• repeats contribute heavily to the score;
• a small number of misconceptions keep returning.

Red

• one paper is consistently neglected;
• mock conditions vary so much that scores cannot be compared;
• many correct answers are low-confidence guesses;
• the same high-confidence errors recur;
• full work cannot be completed within current instructions;
• scores depend on memorised items.

Green does not guarantee a pass. Red does not mean a candidate cannot recover. The colours are decision aids: maintain, repair or redesign.

What to do after a disappointing mock

Do not immediately take another full mock. First, split the loss into components:

1. Content: Which domains account for the errors?
2. Process: Which statements were misread or overgeneralised?
3. Memory: Which learned facts could not be retrieved?
4. Source: Was an explanation conflicting or outdated?
5. Timing: Where did pace change?
6. State: Was the session post-call, interrupted or unusually fatigued?

Choose one or two repair actions, then use a delayed transfer set. For example, rereading an entire textbook chapter may be unnecessary if three errors share one missed relationship. Conversely, memorising the three answer explanations is insufficient if the mechanism is unclear.

The question-bank effectiveness guide gives a statement-level review process.

Frequently asked questions

What percentage should I aim for in an EDAIC question bank?

No unofficial percentage guarantees an EDAIC pass. Use the provider's score to compare your own performance on comparable, unseen sets, and assess both papers, coverage, timing, confidence and recurring errors.

Is the EDAIC pass mark fixed?

The ESAIC Diploma Guide explains that pass marks are set through the examination process and may vary with paper standard and reference-question performance. Check the current official documents rather than assuming a permanent percentage.

Can a strong Paper A score compensate for weak Paper B?

Do not plan on compensation. ESAIC states that both papers must be passed. Track and prepare them separately.

How many mocks should I complete?

There is no universal number. Use enough controlled simulations to establish a stable process and reveal repairable gaps, while preserving time to review them. Quality of review matters more than collecting attempts.

Should I repeat the same mock?

Repeating can support learning, but the score will be influenced by memory for the items. Keep repeat results out of your primary first-attempt readiness trend.

When should I stop doing questions and read more?

Pause to study when errors cluster around an underlying concept you cannot explain. Return to new questions after repair. Questions and reading should form a loop, not competing phases.

Replace the magic number with converging evidence

A credible readiness judgement comes from several signals pointing in the same direction: stable first-attempt accuracy, broad and recent coverage, fewer recurring misconceptions, controlled timing, calibrated confidence and adequate performance in both papers.

Use scores to make the next decision, never as a promise. If you want to establish your baseline, Try 10 EDAIC questions free — no card required — then record what you knew, what you guessed and what you need to retrieve again.

Sources and official links

• ESAIC Diploma Guide 2025
• ESAIC Part I paper examination regulations
• ESAIC evidence-based study guide
• Roediger and Butler: retrieval practice and long-term retention
• Karpicke and Blunt: retrieval practice versus concept mapping
• Maye and Hurley: spaced repetition in medical education