PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15507012

The long case.

Val Wass·Cees van der Vleuten
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The long case has been gradually replaced by the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) as a summative assessment of clinical skills. Its demise occurred against a paucity of psychometric research. This article reviews the current status of the long case, appraising its strengths and weaknesses as an assessment tool. ISSUES: There is a conflict between validity and reliability. The long case assesses an integrated clinical reaction between doctor and real patients and has high face validity. Intercase reliability is the prime problem. As most examinations traditionally used a single case only, problems of content specificity and standardisation were not addressed. DISCUSSION: Recent research suggests that testing across more cases does improve reliability. Better structuring of tests and direct observation increases validity. Substituting standardised cases for real patients may be of little benefit compared to increasing the sample of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Observed long cases can be useful for assessment depending on the sample size of cases and examiners. More research is needed into the exact nature of intercase and interexaminer variance and consequential validity. Feasibility remains a key problem. More exploration of combined assessments using real patients with OSCEs is suggested.

Explore related subjects

Clinical CompetenceEducation, Medical, UndergraduateEducational MeasurementHumansReproducibility of ResultsStudents, MedicalJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Val Wass, Cees van der Vleuten. 2004. The long case.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01985.x

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Defining "success" in recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: moving toward a more consistent approach.

Although medically underserved groups bear a heavy burden of cancer disease and governmental agencies have required inclusion of minorities and women in cancer clinical trials since 1993, many of these groups are underrepresented in cancer prevention or treatment clinical trials. To assess and enhance recruitment of underrepresented populations into cancer-related clinical trials, investigators and governmental agencies need consistent measurement approaches for recruitment that can be applied to diverse settings where trials are conducted. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate what measurement approaches were used to evaluate the success of recruitment of underrepresented groups into cancer prevention or treatment trials, and whether these recruitment goals were stated a priori. Only two articles reported an a priori recruitment goal. The recruitment measurement approaches varied considerably, with no consistent standard, especially for individual trials. By using the empiric evidence from this review in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, we constructed a framework for choosing consistent a priori recruitment goals for underrepresented groups based on the research question and study location. Using consistent measurement approaches for underrepresented groups will improve comparability of recruitment strategies across trials, improve equity in distribution of benefits and burdens of cancer-related clinical trials, and may improve applicability of trial results to multiple populations.

Clinical Competence↗