PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7058471

[The objective-structured clinical examination (OSCE)].

Abstract

The objective-structured clinical examination (OSCE) as described by Harden and Gleeson could be evaluated for a specific, limited skill (history and physical examination) on two third-year classes. The candidates were also evaluated on the same skills by conventional techniques in the Departments of Paediatrics, and Obstetrics and Gynaecology during the same examination period. The results were comparable and had significant Spearman rank correlations with the overall mark. The new method is highly acceptable to both students and examiners, and especially noteworthy was the fact that 93% of students experienced this test as a learning situation. They assessed it as an objective and fair evaluation, an opinion shared by most of the participating examiners. It would appear justified to use this test instrument more often, and in other combinations of disciplines and for other skills in subsequent years of the course.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H P Wassermann, B R Slabbert, J J van Zyl. 1982-02-27. [The objective-structured clinical examination (OSCE)].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7058471/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

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↗