PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12881045

Validity and the OSCE.

Abstract

In preparation for a celebration of '30 years of OSCEs' held during the 2002 meeting of the Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE), I was asked to discuss the question, 'Are OSCEs valid to assess competence?". My first instinct was to review work undertaken in ay countries by famous researchers such as Harden, Colliver, Rothman, van der Vleuten, Stillman, Tamblyn and others who have studied and written about the validity of OSCEs. I could then have reviewed the extensive literature produced in Canada by the Medical Council of Canada and in the United States by the Education Commission on Foreign Medical Graduates and National Board of Medical Examiners that has demonstrated the utility of large-scale OSCEs for certification and licensure. I might have tossed in a few papers from my own research on the validity of OSCEs in psychiatry. Indeed, it would have been relatively easy to marshal the medical education literature to answer the question 'Are OSCEs valid to assess competence' strongly in the affirmative. But the more I reflected on the question, the more I confronted concerns that have troubled me for some time. Specifically, I worry that our approaches to validity may themselves not be valid. In this paper, I review what I believe to be three serious problems with our current approaches to showing that 'the OSCE is valid' Let me begin by rethinking the question. What do we mean 'Is the OSCE valid for assessing competence' There are three important problems with this question. First, validity is a property of the application of a test, not of a test itself. Second, we cannot speak of validity without giving consideration to the context in which we use the test. And finally, the concept of validity flounders because the OSCE itself is an important agent in constructing the variables of performance that it is designed to measure. I shall consider each issue in turn.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Brian Hodges. 2003. Validity and the OSCE.. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590310001002836

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Investing in Canada's nursing workforce: a comprehensive review to inform policy innovations and directions.

BACKGROUND: Health systems worldwide face persistent health workers challenges including nursing shortages, workforce strain, and inequities. In Canada, these challenges have prompted renewed national and provincial reforms to strengthen recruitment, retention, leadership, and sustainability. This paper compares nursing workforce policy directions across Canada, and international jurisdictions to inform policy and planning. METHODS: A cross-country comparative analysis of policies building on a comprehensive national funded review that included an umbrella review of 69 systematic reviews, a comparative policy review of nursing workforce strategies in five jurisdictions, and validation through national horizon-scanning and policy dialogues (n >100). Evidence was analyzed across system, organizational, and individual levels. RESULTS: At the system level, international jurisdictions demonstrate comprehensive, legislated approaches integrating data, governance, and multi-year funding have advanced key nursing strategies. In Canada, the advances show the importance of strategies to have national and provincial/territorial alignment emphasizing leadership, flexibility, and inclusion as key levers. Organizational and individual-level reforms such as mentorship, leadership development, and wellness initiatives are expanding but remain variably evaluated. Experts identified national workforce data strategies and policy integration with embedded evaluation as key enablers to inform scalability and sustainability of implemented strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Canada's nursing workforce reforms are advancing toward coordinated, equity-driven, and evidence-informed strategies. Continued investment in evaluation, leadership, and national integrated data systems along with integrating nursing workforce planning within broader intersectoral planning will consolidate these gains and position Canada as an international leader in sustainable nursing workforce policy.

Canada↗

A likelihood approach to estimating sensitivity and specificity for binocular data: application in ophthalmology.

Binocular data typically arise in ophthalmology where pairs of eyes are evaluated, through some diagnostic procedure, for the presence of certain diseases or pathologies. Treating eyes as independent and adopting the usual approach in estimating the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test ignores the correlation between eyes. This may consequently yield incorrect estimates, especially of the standard errors. The paper proposes a likelihood-based method of accounting for the correlations between eyes and estimating sensitivity and specificity using a model for binocular or paired binary outcomes. Estimation of model parameters via maximum likelihood is outlined and approximate tests are provided. The efficiency of the estimates is assessed in a simulation study. An extension of the methodology to the case of several diagnostic tests, or the same test measured on several occasions, which arises in multi-reader studies, is given. A further extension to the case of multiple diseases is outlined as well. Data from a study on diabetic retinopathy are analysed to illustrate the methodology.

Canada↗

Accounting for expected attrition in the planning of community intervention trials.

Trials in which intact communities are the units of randomization are increasingly being used to evaluate interventions which are more naturally administered at the community level, or when there is a substantial risk of treatment contamination. In this article we focus on the planning of community intervention trials in which k communities (for example, medical practices, worksites, or villages) are to be randomly allocated to each of an intervention and a control group, and fixed cohorts of m individuals enrolled in each community prior to randomization. Formulas to determine k or m may be obtained by adjusting standard sample size formulas to account for the intracluster correlation coefficient rho. In the presence of individual-level attrition however, observed cohort sizes are likely to vary. We show that conventional approaches of accounting for potential attrition, such as dividing standard sample size formulas by the anticipated follow-up rate pi or using the average anticipated cohort size m pi, may, respectively, overestimate or underestimate the required sample size when cluster follow-up rates are highly variable, and m or rho are large. We present new sample size estimation formulas for the comparison of two means or two proportions, which appropriately account for variation among cluster follow-up rates. These formulas are derived by specifying a model for the binary missingness indicators under the population-averaged approach, assuming an exchangeable intracluster correlation coefficient, denoted by tau. To aid in the planning of future trials, we recommend that estimates for tau be reported in published community intervention trials.

Canada↗