Dataset Information

Measuring the Effect of Examiner Variability in a Multiple-Circuit Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE).

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Ensuring that examiners in different parallel circuits of objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) judge to the same standard is critical to the chain of validity. Recent work suggests examiner-cohort (i.e., the particular group of examiners) could significantly alter outcomes for some candidates. Despite this, examiner-cohort effects are rarely examined since fully nested data (i.e., no crossover between the students judged by different examiner groups) limit comparisons. In this study, the authors aim to replicate and further develop a novel method called Video-based Examiner Score Comparison and Adjustment (VESCA), so it can be used to enhance quality assurance of distributed or national OSCEs.

Method

In 2019, 6 volunteer students were filmed on 12 stations in a summative OSCE. In addition to examining live student performances, examiners from 8 separate examiner-cohorts scored the pool of video performances. Examiners scored videos specific to their station. Video scores linked otherwise fully nested data, enabling comparisons by Many Facet Rasch Modeling. Authors compared and adjusted for examiner-cohort effects. They also compared examiners' scores when videos were embedded (interspersed between live students during the OSCE) or judged later via the internet.

Results

Having accounted for differences in students' ability, different examiner-cohorts scores for the same ability of student ranged from 18.57 of 27 (68.7%) to 20.49 (75.9%), Cohen's d = 1.3. Score adjustment changed the pass/fail classification for up to 16% of students depending on the modeled cut score. Internet and embedded video scoring showed no difference in mean scores or variability. Examiners' accuracy did not deteriorate over the 3-week internet scoring period.

Conclusions

Examiner-cohorts produced a replicable, significant influence on OSCE scores that was unaccounted for by typical assessment psychometrics. VESCA offers a promising means to enhance validity and fairness in distributed OSCEs or national exams. Internet-based scoring may enhance VESCA's feasibility.

SUBMITTER: Yeates P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8300845 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study aimed to investigate the impact of student e-learning on the development of clinical competencies. The study participants were 3rd year students (n = 43) at a private mid-sized medical school located in a South Korean suburb on a four-year medical program. Educational intervention was implemented to enhance student clinical performance. Students engaged in learning activities that intended to promote their self-directed learning abilities and clinical performances using e-learning resources. Intervention was conducted for the duration of six months during the 3rd year and its effectiveness was investigated by comparing student performances in OSCEs in a pre- and post- comparison format and also by comparing them with national scores. In addition, student perceptions of the impact of e-learning on their OSCE performances were assessed using a questionnaire, which included 36 items that elicited student perceptions of their experiences of e-learning and readiness for e-learning. Student OSCE scores improved significantly after educational intervention in all domains of clinical competencies assessed and for total scores (p < 0.001). Furthermore, students achieved higher OSCE scores than national average scores in the post-test, whereas they had performed lower than national average scores in the pre-test. Students showed neutral or slightly positive responses to the effectiveness of e-learning, and their perceptions of e-learning were not associated with their e-learning readiness scores. The study shows student OSCE performance improved significantly after educational intervention, which indicate the effectiveness of e-learning to support student learning of clinical performance. Despite significant improvements in student OSCE scores after e-learning, their perceptions of its effectiveness were neutral. Furthermore, student perceptions of e-learning were not associated with their readiness for it. Suggestions are made to help students use e-learning more effectively to enhance their clinical competencies.

Project description:Introduction: The aim of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a standardized and fair assessment of clinical skills. Observing second clinical year medical students during a summative OSCE assessing a General Practice clerkship, we noticed that information exchange with peers led to a progressively faster and overly focused management of simulations. Therefore, we established a Multiple Scenario-OSCE (MS-OSCE) where all students had to manage the same chief complaint at a station but it's underlying scenarios being randomly changed during students' rotation through their parcours. We wanted to ensure they fully explore differential diagnosis instead of managing their task influenced by shared information. We wanted to assess if a MS-OSCE violates the assumption of objectivity and fairness given that students are not tested with the same scenarios. Methods: We developed and piloted five OSCE stations (chest pain, abdominal pain, back pain, fatigue and acute cough) with two or three different underlying scenarios each. At each station these scenarios randomly changed from student to student. Performance was assessed with a checklist and global rating. The effect of scenarios and raters on students' grades was assessed calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient with a fixed effect two level linear model. Results: A total of 169 students and 23 raters participated in the MS-OSCE. The internal consistency over all stations was 0.65 by Cronbach's alpha. The difference of the mean grades between the scenarios of a given chief complaint ranged from 0.03 to 0.4 on a 1 to 5 grading scale. The effect of scenarios on the variance of the final grades at each station ranged from 4% to 9% and of raters from 20% to 50% when adjusted for students' skills. Conclusions: The effect of different scenarios on the grades was relevant but small compared to the effect of raters on grades. Improving rater training is more important to ensure objectivity and fairness of MS-OSCE than providing the same scenario to all students.

Project description:Background and objectivesAcute kidney replacement therapy (KRT) prescription is a critical nephrology skill. We administered a formative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to nephrology fellows to assess acute KRT medical knowledge, patient care, and systems-based practice competencies.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsProspective cohort study of an educational test using the unified model of construct validity. We tested 117 fellows: 25 (four programs) in 2016 and 92 (15 programs) in 2017; 51 first-year and 66 second-year fellows. Using institutional protocols and order sets, fellows wrote orders and answered open-ended questions on a three-scenario OSCE, previously validated by board-certified, practicing clinical nephrologists. Outcomes were overall and scenario pass percentage and score; percent correctly answering predetermined, evidence-based questions; second-year score correlation with in-training examination score; and satisfaction survey.ResultsA total of 76% passed scenario 1 (acute continuous RRT): 92% prescribed a ≥20 ml/kg per hour effluent dose; 63% estimated clearance as effluent volume. Forty-two percent passed scenario 2 (maintenance dialysis initiation); 75% correctly prescribed 3-4 mEq/L K+ dialysate and 12% identified the two absolute, urgent indications for maintenance dialysis initiation (uremic encephalopathy and pericarditis). Six percent passed scenario 3 (acute life-threatening hyperkalemia); 20% checked for rebound hyperkalemia with two separate blood draws. Eighty-three percent correctly withheld intravenous sodium bicarbonate for acute hyperkalemia in a nonacidotic, volume-overloaded patient on maintenance dialysis, and 32% passed overall. Second-year versus first-year fellow overall score was 44.4±4 versus 42.7±5 (one-tailed P=0.02), with 39% versus 24% passing (P=0.08). Second-year in-training examination and OSCE scores were not significantly correlated (r=0.15; P=0.26). Seventy-seven percent of fellows agreed the OSCE was useful in assessing "proficiency in ordering" acute KRT. Limitations include lack of a validated criterion test, and unfamiliarity with open-ended question format.ConclusionsThe OSCE can provide quantitative data for formative Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competency assessments and identify opportunities for dialysis curriculum development.PodcastThis article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2019_08_08_CJASNPodcast_19_09_.mp3.