PURPOSE: To examine the validity of a written knowledge test of skills for performance on an OSCE in postgraduate training for general practice. METHODS: A randomly-selected sample of 47 trainees in general practice took a knowledge test of skills, a general knowledge test and an OSCE. The OSCE included technical stations and stations including complete patient encounters. Each station was checklist rated and global rated. RESULTS: The knowledge test of skills was better correlated to the OSCE than the general knowledge test. Technical stations were better correlated to the knowledge test of skills than stations including complete patient encounters. For the technical stations the rating system had no influence on the correlation. For the stations including complete patient encounters the checklist rating correlated better to the knowledge test of skills than the global rating. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the predictive validity of the knowledge test of skills. In postgraduate training for general practice a written knowledge test of skills can be used as an instrument to estimate the level of clinical skills, especially for group evaluation, such as in studies examining the efficacy of a training programme or as a screening instrument for deciding about courses to be offered. This estimation is more accurate when the content of the test matches the skills under study. However, written testing of skills cannot replace direct observation of performance of skills.
PURPOSE: To examine the validity of a written knowledge test of skills for performance on an OSCE in postgraduate training for general practice. METHODS: A randomly-selected sample of 47 trainees in general practice took a knowledge test of skills, a general knowledge test and an OSCE. The OSCE included technical stations and stations including complete patient encounters. Each station was checklist rated and global rated. RESULTS: The knowledge test of skills was better correlated to the OSCE than the general knowledge test. Technical stations were better correlated to the knowledge test of skills than stations including complete patient encounters. For the technical stations the rating system had no influence on the correlation. For the stations including complete patient encounters the checklist rating correlated better to the knowledge test of skills than the global rating. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the predictive validity of the knowledge test of skills. In postgraduate training for general practice a written knowledge test of skills can be used as an instrument to estimate the level of clinical skills, especially for group evaluation, such as in studies examining the efficacy of a training programme or as a screening instrument for deciding about courses to be offered. This estimation is more accurate when the content of the test matches the skills under study. However, written testing of skills cannot replace direct observation of performance of skills.
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Mary E Mancini; Farhan Bhanji; John E Billi; Jennifer Dennett; Judith Finn; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma; Gavin D Perkins; David L Rodgers; Mary Fran Hazinski; Ian Jacobs; Peter T Morley Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Elisabeth Flum; Roar Maagaard; Maciek Godycki-Cwirko; Nigel Scarborough; Nynke Scherpbier; Thomas Ledig; Marco Roos; Jost Steinhäuser Journal: GMS Z Med Ausbild Date: 2015-05-13
Authors: Jette Led Sørensen; Cees Van der Vleuten; Jane Lindschou; Christian Gluud; Doris Østergaard; Vicki LeBlanc; Marianne Johansen; Kim Ekelund; Charlotte Krebs Albrechtsen; Berit Woetman Pedersen; Hanne Kjærgaard; Pia Weikop; Bent Ottesen Journal: Trials Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: José Maria Gonçalves Fernandes; Amanda Lira dos Santos Leite; Bruna de Sá Duarte Auto; José Elson Gama de Lima; Ivan Romero Rivera; Maria Alayde Mendonça Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2014-06-06 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Jette Led Sørensen; Cees van der Vleuten; Susanne Rosthøj; Doris Østergaard; Vicki LeBlanc; Marianne Johansen; Kim Ekelund; Liis Starkopf; Jane Lindschou; Christian Gluud; Pia Weikop; Bent Ottesen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sang Chul Kim; Young Sun Ro; Sang Do Shin; Dae Han Wi; Joongsik Jeong; Ju Ok Park; Kyong Min Sun; Kwangsoo Bae Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 2.153