PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12593565

OSPE in pathology.

M Feroze·A J Jacob
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Undergraduate medical education is currently undergoing extensive re-evaluation with new core educational objectives being defined. Consequently, new exam systems have also been designed to test the objectives. Objective structured practical examination (OSPE) is one of them. We conducted OSPE in a regular batch of 64 students. The batch was divided into 4 groups, one group taking the conventional practical exam and the other groups OSPE with minor variations. Different aspects were compared and analyzed and we found that OSPE was more objective, measured practical skills better, had a wide discrimination index and eliminated examiner bias. The questionnaire given to the students revealed a high acceptance rate among them.

Explore related subjects

Education, Medical, UndergraduateEducational MeasurementHumansIndiaPathologySurveys and QuestionnairesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Feroze, A J Jacob. 2002. OSPE in pathology.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12593565/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗