The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the psychometric properties of checklists, global rating scales preceded by a checklist, and global rating scales alone in assessing surgery residents' performances on an OSCE-like technical skills examination. METHOD: In 1996, 53 general surgery residents with one to six years of postgraduate training participated in a performance-based examination of technical skills consisting of eight 15-minute stations (bench-model simulations of operative procedures in general surgery). Two qualified surgeons marked at each station, one using a task-specific checklist (C) and a subsequent global rating scale (Gc), the other using a global rating scale only (G). RESULTS: Interstation reliabilities measured by Cronbach's alpha were .79 for C, .89 for Gc, and .85 for G. A series of multiple regressions predicting level of training from test scores revealed an R2 of .584 for C alone, which increased to .711 when Gc was entered after (p < .001), and increased to .704 when G was entered after C (p < .001). However, R2 for Gc alone was .711, and for G alone was .704, neither of which changed when C was entered into the prediction (p > .10). The R2 for Gc and G predicting level of training (.725) was not significantly greater than that of either Gc or G alone. A very similar pattern of results was seen when C, Gc, and G were used to predict independent evaluations of the operative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Global rating scales scored by experts showed higher inter-station reliability, better construct validity, and better concurrent validity than did checklists. Further, the presence of the checklists did not improve the reliability or validity of the global rating scale over that of the global rating scale alone. These results suggest that global rating scales administered by experts are a more appropriate summative measure when assessing candidates on performance-based examinations.
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
Cited by
Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes
Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Schuwirth, L. W. T. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02094.x · Cited by 1,268
Teaching Surgical Skills: What Kind of Practice Makes Perfect?: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Moulton, C.-A. E., Dubrowski, A., MacRae, H., Graham, B., Grober, E., & Reznick, R. (2006) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000234808.85789.6a · Cited by 653
Self-citationA contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework
Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Ginsburg, S., & Hatala, R. (2015) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12678 · Cited by 554
Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education.
Lockyer, J., Carraccio, C., Chan, M.-K., Hart, D., Smee, S., Touchie, C., Holmboe, E. S., Frank, J. R., & Collaborators, O. B. O. T. I. (2017) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2017.1315082 · Cited by 493
Implementation of competency‐based medical education: are we addressing the concerns and challenges?
Hawkins, R. E., Welcher, C. M., Holmboe, E. S., Kirk, L. M., Norcini, J. J., Simons, K. B., & Skochelak, S. E. (2015) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.12831 · Cited by 409
A systematic review of the reliability of objective structured clinical examination scores
Brannick, M. T., Erol‐Korkmaz, H. T., & Prewett, M. (2011) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04075.x · Cited by 354
How to measure the quality of the OSCE: a review of metrics—AMEE guide no. 49.
Pell, G., Fuller, R., Homer, M., & Roberts, T. (2010) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.3109/0142159x.2010.507716 · Cited by 229
The Impact of Stress on Paramedic Performance During Simulated Critical Events
LeBlanc, V. R., Regehr, C., Tavares, W., Scott, A. K., MacDonald, R., & King, K. (2012) · Prehospital and Disaster Medicine · doi:10.1017/s1049023x12001021 · Cited by 179
Generalisability: a key to unlock professional assessment
Crossley, J., Davies, H., Humphris, G., & Jolly, B. (2002) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01320.x · Cited by 169
LeBlanc, J., Hutchison, C., Hu, Y., & Donnon, T. (2013) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery · doi:10.2106/jbjs.k.01284 · Cited by 66
The Efficacy of Arthroscopic Simulation Training on Clinical Ability: A Systematic Review
Luzzi, A., Hellwinkel, J., O’Connor, M., Crutchfield, C., & Lynch, T. S. (2021) · Arthroscopy · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2020.09.018 · Cited by 32
Butler, K. L., Hirsh, D. A., Petrusa, E. R., Yeh, D. D., Stearns, D., Sloane, D. E., Linder, J. A., Basu, G., Thompson, L. A., & de Moya, M. A. (2017) · Journal of Surgical Education · doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.08.018 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Regehr, G., MacRae, H., Reznick, R. K., & Szalay, D.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1998-09
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 993-7
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2002542292
- Cited by
- 711
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.32
- 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
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.