You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson goes deeper into the precise mechanics of how your SJT score is calculated. While UCAT does not publish the exact mark values, the system has been reverse-engineered through official guidance, psychometric research, and consistent candidate reports. Understanding the mechanics allows you to make informed strategic decisions during the test.
Before we discuss how marks are calculated, you need to understand how the "correct" answers are determined in the first place.
Every SJT question is reviewed by an expert panel consisting of:
The panel members independently rate each question. Their individual ratings are then statistically combined to produce the consensus answer. This is not a simple majority vote — psychometric methods ensure that outlier opinions are appropriately weighted and that the final answer represents a robust professional consensus.
| Step | Process |
|---|---|
| 1 | Each panellist answers the question independently |
| 2 | Responses are collected and analysed statistically |
| 3 | Items where the panel cannot reach consensus are removed or revised |
| 4 | The consensus answer becomes the scoring key |
| 5 | Questions are trialled on candidate populations to check they discriminate as expected |
The correct answer is not the opinion of one expert. It is the statistical consensus of a diverse panel. This means:
Each Appropriateness question contains four actions. Each action is scored independently using the following system:
| Your rating vs. correct rating | Distance | Typical marks |
|---|---|---|
| Exact match | 0 | 4 |
| One position away | 1 | 3 |
| Two positions away | 2 | 2 |
| Three positions away | 3 | 0 |
Maximum marks per action: 4 Maximum marks per question (4 actions): 16
Question: A medical student observes a consultant making a minor clinical error that does not harm the patient.
| Action | Correct rating | Your rating | Distance | Marks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Discuss the error privately with the consultant | Very appropriate (1) | Very appropriate (1) | 0 | 4 |
| Report the error to the clinical director immediately | Inappropriate, but not awful (3) | Appropriate, but not ideal (2) | 1 | 3 |
| Discuss the error with another student for advice | Inappropriate, but not awful (3) | Inappropriate, but not awful (3) | 0 | 4 |
| Ignore the error because the patient was not harmed | Very inappropriate (4) | Inappropriate, but not awful (3) | 1 | 3 |
Your total for this question: 4 + 3 + 4 + 3 = 14 out of 16 (87.5%)
Even with two "incorrect" answers, the proximity of your responses to the correct ones means you retain most of the available marks.
Notice the dramatic drop between a distance of 2 (earning 2 marks) and a distance of 3 (earning 0 marks). This cliff edge is the most punishing feature of the scoring system.
| Distance | Marks | Drop from previous |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 4 | — |
| 1 | 3 | -1 |
| 2 | 2 | -1 |
| 3 | 0 | -2 |
Being at the maximum distance (e.g., rating something "Very appropriate" when it is "Very inappropriate") earns zero marks. The penalty is disproportionately severe, and this is by design — candidates who are completely wrong on an ethical question should not earn any credit.
The mechanics are identical to Appropriateness questions:
| Your rating vs. correct rating | Distance | Typical marks |
|---|---|---|
| Exact match | 0 | 4 |
| One position away | 1 | 3 |
| Two positions away | 2 | 2 |
| Three positions away | 3 | 0 |
Question: A patient requests that their medical records be transferred to a new GP.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.