Cited by 1Innovations in Medical EducationMusculoskeletal Disorders and RehabilitationMedical Education and Admissions

Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Technique Scores on the COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE: An Analysis of the Skills Assessed

Open access
Smith, Larissa L., Xu, Wei, Sandella, Jeanne M., Dowling, Dennis J.·2016·Journal of Osteopathic Medicine

Abstract

Context: The National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners uses the Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment (OMT) Global Rating Tool to score candidate performance in OMT during standardized patient encounters. To the authors’ knowledge, no validity research has been published on the underlying constructs measured by this instrument to date. Objective: To evaluate whether the OMT Global Rating Tool measures 1 holistic skill or multiple skill sets. Methods: Structural equation models were fit to data from first-time test-takers who took the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination-USA Level 2-Performance Evaluation (COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE) between July 7, 2014, and April 30, 2015. Two theoretical models were evaluated: a model that posited a single underlying skill set, and a model that posited 2 related but distinct skill sets. Results: The 1-factor and 2-factor models were fit to data from 4673 third- and fourth-year osteopathic medical students. Fit statistics indicated that the data were best fit by a model representing 2 factors: pre– and post–OMT technique assessment and OMT technique (r=0.47). Conclusion: The OMT Global Rating Tool seems to measure 2 distinct but related skills. Although the results of this study are applicable to broad populations and cannot be used to provide skill-specific subscores, it might be helpful to remediation efforts to target pre– and post–OMT technique assessments and OMT techniques as distinct areas for intervention.

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 · 10.7556/jaoa.2016.080

Cites

Statistics

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 11 · Cited by 1

Authors
Smith, L. L., Xu, W., Sandella, J. M., & Dowling, D. J.
Venue
Journal of Osteopathic Medicine
Published
2016-06-01
Volume
116
Issue
6
Pages
392-397
ISSN
2702-3648 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2405689849
Cited by
1
References
11
Citations by year
2024: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
Keywords
osteopathic manipulative treatment, factor structure, construct validity, standardized patient assessment, osteopathic medical students, remediation
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Humans, Osteopathic Medicine, Specialty Boards, United States, Manipulation, Osteopathic

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