This audit is for the core psychiatry trainee who already uses, or is about to buy, MRCPsychMentor for MRCPsych Paper A and wants to read its analytics honestly rather than be reassured by them. It addresses the written MCQ-and-EMI paper on the scientific and theoretical basis of psychiatry, not the CASC. The principal limitation is simple: the platform scores the questions you chose to attempt, in the modes you chose, so the home-screen percentage is a study metric, not an exam-day estimate.
What MRCPsychMentor offers for MRCPsych Paper A right now
The figures below are vendor-reported, taken from the MRCPsychMentor Paper A pages as observed on 20 July 2026. Treat every count, price and feature as provisional and confirm the current numbers on the product page before you buy.
| Item | Vendor-reported detail (20 July 2026) |
|---|---|
| Bank size | "Over 2,000" questions mapped to the Paper A syllabus, drawn from previous exams and the current College syllabus |
| Question format | Best-answer one-of-five MCQs and extended matching items (EMIs), matching the written paper |
| Domains | The five Paper A areas: behavioural science and socio-cultural psychiatry; human development; basic neurosciences and genetics; clinical psychopharmacology; classification and assessment |
| Analytics | A histogram comparing your scores against other candidates, updated daily; strength-and-weakness analysis; question-review functions — no published national percentile or predicted pass score |
| Difficulty control | Candidate-selected topic and mode (revision mode versus timed test) |
| Mock exams | Two mock exams that simulate the MRCPsych format |
| Explanations | Revision notes under each question; question flagging and personal annotation |
| Access and price | 4 months £60; 6 months £80 — verify current pricing on the product page |
| Trial | Free demo |
| Exam components | Written Paper A MCQ/EMI; a separate AI-powered CASC resource exists but is not part of the Paper A bank |
One point governs how you should read the rest of this article. MRCPsychMentor is often thought of as an "adaptive" or "intelligent" bank, but on the pages we checked it does not publish or claim a proprietary adaptive-difficulty algorithm, a national percentile or a predicted pass score. What it demonstrably offers is candidate-selected topic practice, a daily-updated peer-comparison histogram, strength-and-weakness identification and two format mocks. This audit treats the product as what it is, and makes no proprietary-algorithm claims for any tool; verify the current feature language yourself rather than assuming the feed adapts difficulty for you.
The exam this dashboard is trying to predict
MRCPsych Paper A is a single computer-delivered paper: 150 questions in three hours at a Pearson VUE centre, approximately two-thirds best-of-five MCQ and one-third EMI, which works out at roughly 100 MCQs and 50 EMIs. It tests the scientific and theoretical basis of psychiatry across five areas — behavioural science and socio-cultural psychiatry; human development; basic neurosciences including genetics; clinical psychopharmacology; and classification and assessment, including descriptive psychopathology. There is no negative marking, and the pass mark is set by a criterion-referenced standard (confirm the current standard-setting on rcpsych.ac.uk). Paper A is one written gateway; the clinical CASC follows as a separate OSCE-style exam that neither an MCQ bank nor iatroX reproduces.
Two things follow. First, the Royal College of Psychiatrists syllabus, published sample questions and reading list are the calibration standard — a vendor bank is a training tool, not the blueprint. Second, confirm the current question count, the MCQ-to-EMI split and the standard-setting method on the College site, because third-party descriptions can lag a format change.
Every metric on the dashboard, defined
You cannot audit a number you have not defined. Here is what each metric means, and what it does not.
First-attempt accuracy is the percentage you answered correctly the first time you ever saw an item. It is the number closest to unseen ability, but only within the topics you have attempted, and only if you answer before reading the revision note. Repeat accuracy is your score on items you have already seen; it climbs quickly because you are recognising a specific stem or EMI option list, so a near-ceiling score means little. A wide gap between the two says you are memorising items, not mastering neuroscience, psychopharmacology and psychopathology.
Peer histogram and percentile. MRCPsychMentor's headline social feature is the daily-updated histogram that plots your score against other candidates. This is directional, not absolute — the cohort is other subscribers who chose the same items, not the national Paper A population, and it shifts with who else is revising. There is no formal national percentile and no published predicted pass score, so do not read the histogram as a probability of passing; where a bank does show a predicted score, treat it as a model of a model — motivational, not diagnostic.
Coverage is the share of the blueprint you have attempted at all — the metric most candidates never open and the one that matters most across five domains. Difficulty here is something you largely control through topic selection, so your running percentage partly reflects the mixture you chose, not an independent measure of standard. Time per item matters because the real paper gives you 150 questions in 180 minutes — about 72 seconds each; only the timed mock mode shows whether you are inside that budget, and EMIs in particular can burn time.
Why the headline percentage is not your exam score
Two mechanisms bias the pool the dashboard scores. First, you choose the topics, so drilling the psychopharmacology you enjoy makes your percentage reflect a deliberately narrow slice rather than a balanced paper. Second, the strength-and-weakness prompts, used naively, push you to grind your weak areas in isolation — good for learning, but it means your headline number is computed on a non-representative mixture. Either way, a percentage earned on a self-selected pool is not comparable with an unseen, blueprint-mixed, timed block — the argument in "Your Q-Bank Percentage Is Not Your Exam Score". A rising number can mean you are improving, or that you have quietly stopped attempting the neuroscience and genetics items that unsettle you.
The blueprint audit MRCPsychMentor will not run for you
Instead of trusting the home-screen average, lay your attempted-question distribution beside the official Paper A weighting. Populate the "official weight" column from the current College blueprint rather than the bank's internal tags; the example shares below are illustrative of the method, not real data.
| Paper A area | Official weight | Example attempted share | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical psychopharmacology | Verify (RCPsych blueprint) | 34% | Over-sampled |
| Basic neurosciences and genetics | Verify (RCPsych blueprint) | 12% | Under-sampled — the classic gap |
| Behavioural science and socio-cultural psychiatry | Verify (RCPsych blueprint) | 22% | On target |
| Human development | Verify (RCPsych blueprint) | 18% | On target |
| Classification and assessment | Verify (RCPsych blueprint) | 14% | Check accuracy |
Fill this in from your own account data. The classic Paper A error is a candidate strong in psychopharmacology and psychopathology who has attempted only a fraction of the basic-neuroscience and genetics items — then loses easy marks on receptor pharmacology, neuroanatomy and heritability. The method is the blueprint-coverage matrix from "Question-bank completion is not coverage"; the bank gives you the attempts, you build the matrix.
The readiness test — five conditions for a credible signal
A number only counts as a readiness signal when it is earned under exam-like conditions. Require all five: unseen (never-attempted items, not flagged re-runs); timed at roughly 72 seconds per item; mixed across all five areas rather than topic-filtered; sat with no assistance (no revision notes, no paused clock); and a sufficiently large sample (a full 150-item mock or several mixed blocks). A 78% on a topic-filtered, untimed quiz is not the same evidence as 78% on a fresh, timed, mixed, full-length block.
Algorithm override rules
Because you drive the topic selection, low-volume but eminently testable material slips through. Set a weekly quota and force these in rather than waiting for them to appeal: the numerical and genetics content (heritability, twin-study logic, epidemiological reasoning); receptor pharmacology and pharmacokinetic detail; neuroanatomy and neurophysiology; the EMI format itself, which behaves differently from single-best-answer; and the descriptive-psychopathology definitions that are easy marks when precise and easy losses when fuzzy. A rising overall percentage must never hide a domain you have never attempted.
Worked dashboard example: from analytics to next week's quotas
Picture a candidate six weeks out: overall first-attempt 68%; clinical psychopharmacology 76%; basic neurosciences and genetics 58% on only about 12% of attempts; behavioural science 72%; human development 70%; classification 65%; time per item 60 seconds untimed. Read it honestly — the neuroscience score is both low and thinly sampled, so the 68% is propped up by the comfortable domains, and the untimed pace says nothing about the 72-second budget. Next week's quotas then write themselves, with no pass prediction attached.
| Domain | Dashboard reading | Next-week quota | Mode |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basic neurosciences and genetics | 58% first-attempt, ~12% of attempts | 120 new items | Topic-filtered, then timed |
| Classification and assessment | 65% first-attempt | 60 new items | Topic-filtered, EMI-heavy |
| Human development | 70% first-attempt | 40 items | Timed mixed |
| Whole-blueprint check | not measured cold | one 150-item timed mixed mock | Unseen, no filters |
Nothing in that plan claims the candidate will pass; it simply moves effort to the measured gap and forces one honest, unseen, timed check.
Seven-day pattern: MRCPsychMentor for one job, iatroX for unseen transfer
This is for a trainee revising around clinical work, using MRCPsychMentor for one job — building and repairing written recall — and iatroX for unseen transfer measurement. No proprietary-algorithm claims are made for either tool.
- Day 1 (Mon) — MRCPsychMentor: 40 basic-neuroscience and genetics items, topic-filtered, every miss reviewed and logged as a one-line rule.
- Day 2 (Tue) — 40 psychopharmacology items with an EMI emphasis; tag each error by type.
- Day 3 (Wed) — 30 classification and human-development items plus a spaced re-test of Monday's misses; then switch tools for a 30-item unseen, timed, mixed iatroX Paper A block and record first-attempt accuracy by domain.
- Day 4 (Thu) — 40 more neuroscience and genetics items on the weakest sub-topics; redo flagged items.
- Day 5 (Fri) — one timed MRCPsychMentor mock under full conditions.
- Day 6 (Sat) — review the mock; two short source reads on the worst topics, taking any drug specifics from the SmPC or electronic medicines compendium rather than a half-remembered fact.
- Day 7 (Sun) — a 60–90-item unseen, timed, mixed iatroX block; compare with Wednesday to see whether the week transferred.
That is the two-bank pattern from "The two-Q-bank rule": one bank to learn on, a different, unseen bank to measure on, so you never mark your own homework. The companion MRCPsychMentor Paper A adaptive workflow gives the fuller step-by-step.
Decision checklist: continue, supplement, switch or stop
| Signal (measurable, not sunk cost) | Action |
|---|---|
| First-attempt accuracy rising across all five areas; each attempted above roughly 80% of available items; unattempted first-pass items remain | Continue |
| Bank percentage high but unseen mixed first-attempt lags by more than 10 points; neuroscience or genetics under-sampled | Supplement — add unseen mixed blocks and force the missing domain |
| Coverage floor met and first-attempt stable, but pace runs over 72 seconds or accuracy falls under time | Switch emphasis to timed mixed mocks |
| Repeat accuracy near the ceiling on almost everything, first-attempt plateaued, unseen blocks confirm the standard | Stop drilling; taper and rest |
Bottom line
MRCPsychMentor is a large, syllabus-mapped Paper A bank with a useful peer-comparison histogram, format mocks and per-question revision notes, and a strong option for the written paper. But its dashboard measures your training pool, not the exam, and it does not, on its public pages, describe a proprietary adaptive-difficulty engine or a predicted score. Use it to find and drill weak, thin domains — especially basic neurosciences and genetics — and use a separate unseen, mixed, timed source, alongside the College's materials, to decide whether you are ready; it does nothing for the CASC. The number that forecasts your exam is the one you earn on questions the system did not choose for you.
Frequently asked questions
Is MRCPsychMentor enough for MRCPsych Paper A on its own? For the written paper, over 2,000 MCQ and EMI items (vendor-reported, 20 July 2026) plus the College's syllabus and sample questions can serve many candidates as a main bank. But "enough" turns on two things it does not do: it does not measure you on genuinely unseen, timed, blueprint-mixed items once you start recognising questions, and it does nothing for the CASC. Treat it as a strong single bank for one component, not a complete MRCPsych programme, and verify the current count on the product page.
Which MRCPsych Paper A component does MRCPsychMentor not reproduce well? The clinical CASC: its Paper A product is a written knowledge bank, and the CASC tests spoken assessment, communication and risk in simulated stations no MCQ rehearses. The vendor sells a separate AI CASC tool, but calibrate its automated marking against a human examiner before trusting it, as we explain in calibrating AI-graded feedback. Within Paper A, comfortable topic selection most under-rehearses the basic-neuroscience, genetics and numerical content.
How many MRCPsychMentor questions should I complete per day for MRCPsych Paper A? There is no magic number; first-attempt quality and blueprint spread matter more than volume. A sustainable pattern around clinical work is roughly 30–50 new first-attempt items on weekdays with full review of every miss, rising at weekends with a timed mock. Forty analysed questions beat 150 rushed ones you never revisit, so protect at least one timed, unseen, mixed block each week as your real signal.
When should I stop using MRCPsychMentor and move to mixed mocks? Move when three measurable conditions hold: you have attempted at least about 80% of each of the five areas, your first-attempt accuracy has stabilised, and you have begun recognising items rather than reasoning them out. At that point repeat accuracy climbs for the wrong reason, so shift the centre of gravity to timed, random, full-length mixed mocks — the College's materials and a second unseen bank — to test transfer and pacing.
How should I combine MRCPsychMentor with iatroX without duplicating practice? Give each tool one job. Use MRCPsychMentor as your build-and-repair bank — first-pass learning, revision notes and spaced review of misses — and iatroX only as the measurement bank: fresh, unseen, timed, mixed blocks run once or twice a week. Because the item pools differ you are not re-answering the same questions; you are separating "have I learned it" from "can I retrieve it cold", the point of the two-Q-bank rule.
Editorial notes and references
Written by Dr Kolawole Tytler, NHS GP and founder of iatroX. Last checked 20 July 2026; MRCPsychMentor question counts, prices and features are vendor-reported as of that date and change without notice — verify the current figures on the product page before purchase. Disclosure: iatroX operates a competing MRCPsych Paper A question bank, so this audit confines iatroX's role to the unseen-measurement job MRCPsychMentor does not claim to perform, and takes no position on price. Corrections are welcome via the feedback route on iatrox.com.
References: Royal College of Psychiatrists — MRCPsych examinations, syllabus and sample papers (rcpsych.ac.uk; verify the current format and standard-setting); MRCPsychMentor Paper A product page (mrcpsychmentor.com; vendor-reported figures); iatroX MRCPsych Paper A bank (https://www.iatrox.com/mrcpsych-paper-a); iatroX comparison hub (https://www.iatrox.com/compare); "Your Q-Bank Percentage Is Not Your Exam Score" (https://www.iatrox.com/blog/qbank-percentage-not-your-exam-score).