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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning
Elstein, A. S., Shulman, L. S., & Sprafka, S. A. (1978) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674189089 · Cited by 1,377
Cited by
The assessment of professional competence: Developments, research and practical implications
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M. (1996) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/bf00596229 · Cited by 1,247
Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination
Reznick, R., Regehr, G., MacRae, H., Martin, J., & McCulloch, W. (1997) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(97)89597-9 · Cited by 1,048
Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data
Downing, S. M. (2004) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01932.x · Cited by 721
The Mini-CEX: A Method for Assessing Clinical Skills
Norcini, J. J., Blank, L. L., Duffy, F. D., & Fortna, G. S. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-6-200303180-00012 · Cited by 730
An admissions OSCE: the multiple mini-interview
Eva, K. W., Rosenfeld, J., Reiter, H. I., & Norman, G. R. (2004) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2004.01776.x · Cited by 617
Metadata
- Authors
- van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Swanson, D. B.
- Venue
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.