PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 7720946

Clinical performance assessment using standardized patients: a primer.

Abstract

The clinical performance assessment (CPA) exam using standardized patients is being used with increasing frequency in medical education. A standardized patient (SP) is an individual who has been taught to portray a patient problem in a way that does not vary from student to student. These exams usually take the format of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), comprised of short "stations" designed to assess a discrete skill, or the simulated clinical encounter (SCE), where stations are fewer in number but of longer duration. While both formats have a place in student assessment, they measure different skills. CPAs have been found to be both reliable and valid. Longer tests tend to be more reliable than short ones, and raters and case specificity are the most likely factors in lowering reliability in SP-based exams. Validity studies have found differences in performance in expected directions and correlations between scores on SP-based exams and other measures. Work on developing standard-setting procedures is being done. Both the OSCE and SCE formats have application for family medicine education. Basic skills and higher-level thinking can be assessed and learning prescriptions developed, but some concepts, such as continuity of care, are difficult to evaluate. Collaborative efforts among family medicine educators should be encouraged.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B G Ferrell. 1995. Clinical performance assessment using standardized patients: a primer.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7720946/

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↗