J P Cunnington1, A J Neville, G R Norman. 1. McMaster University, HSC 3U2, 1200 Main Street West, L5N 3Z5, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, cunningt@mcmasterca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare checklists against global ratings for student performance on each station in an OSCE without the confounder of the global rating scorer having first filled in the checklist. METHOD: Subjects were 96 medical students completing their pre-clinical studies, who took an 8 station clinical OSCE. 39 students were assessed with detailed performance checklists; 57 students went through the same stations but were assessed using only a single global rating per station. A subset of 39 students were assessed by two independent raters. RESULTS: Inter-rater and inter-station reliability of the global rating was the same as for the checklist. Correlation with a concurrent multiple choice test was similar for both formats. CONCLUSION: The global rating was found to be as reliable as more traditional checklist scoring. A discussion of the validity of checklist and global scores suggests that global ratings may be superior.
OBJECTIVE: To compare checklists against global ratings for student performance on each station in an OSCE without the confounder of the global rating scorer having first filled in the checklist. METHOD: Subjects were 96 medical students completing their pre-clinical studies, who took an 8 station clinical OSCE. 39 students were assessed with detailed performance checklists; 57 students went through the same stations but were assessed using only a single global rating per station. A subset of 39 students were assessed by two independent raters. RESULTS: Inter-rater and inter-station reliability of the global rating was the same as for the checklist. Correlation with a concurrent multiple choice test was similar for both formats. CONCLUSION: The global rating was found to be as reliable as more traditional checklist scoring. A discussion of the validity of checklist and global scores suggests that global ratings may be superior.
Authors: J J Norcini; D Diserens; S C Day; R D Cebul; J S Schwartz; L H Beck; G D Webster; T G Schnabel; A Elstein Journal: Acad Med Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Susan Glover Takahashi; Arthur Rothman; Marla Nayer; Murray B Urowitz; Anne Marie Crescenzi Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Brett Vaughan; Vivienne Sullivan; Cameron Gosling; Patrick McLaughlin; Gary Fryer; Margaret Wolff; Roger Gabb Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2012-09-29 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Che-Wei Lin; Daniel L Clinciu; Mark H Swartz; Chien-Chih Wu; Gi-Shih Lien; Cho-Yu Chan; Fei-Peng Lee; Yu-Chuan Li Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2013-07-26 Impact factor: 2.463