Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 572

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: State of the art

van der Vleuten, C. P. M., Swanson, David B.·1990·Teaching and Learning in Medicine

Abstract

A little more than 10 years ago, the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was introduced. It includes several “stations,”; at which examinees perform a variety of clinical tasks. Although an OSCE may involve a range of testing methods, standardized patients (SPs), who are nonphysicians trained to play the role of a patient, are commonly used to assess clinical skills. This article provides a comprehensive review of large‐scale studies of the psychometric characteristics of SP‐based tests. Across studies, reliability analyses consistently indicate that the major source of measurement error is variation in examinee performance from station to station (termed content specificity in the medical‐problem‐solving literature). As a consequence, tests must include large numbers of stations to obtain a stable, reproducible assessment of examinee skills. Disagreements among raters observing examinee performance and differences between SPs playing the same patient role appear to have less effect on the precision of scores, as long as examinees are randomly assigned to raters and SPs. Results of validation studies (e.g., differences in group performance, correlations with other measures) are generally favorable, though not particularly informative. Future validation research should investigate the impact of station format, timing, and instructions on examinee performance; study the procedures used to translate examinee behavior into station and test scores; and work on rater and SP bias. Several recommendations are offered for improving SP‐based tests. These include (a) focusing on assessment of history taking, physical examination, and communication skills, with separately administered written tests used to measure diagnostic and management skills, (b) adoption of a mastery‐testing framework for score interpretation, and (c) development of improved procedures for setting pass‐fail standards. Use of generalizability theory in analyzing and reporting results of psychometric studies is also suggested.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10401339009539432

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 572

Metadata

Authors
van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Swanson, D. B.
Venue
Teaching and Learning in Medicine
Published
1990-01
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
58-76
ISSN
  • 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8015
OpenAlex
W2003613238
Cited by
572
References
1
FWCI
13.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: State of the art. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10401339009539432
The paper
van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Swanson, D. B. (1990). Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: State of the art. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401339009539432

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.