Dennis Kreptul1, Roger E Thomas1. 1. a Department of Family Medicine, Health Sciences Centre , University of Calgary , Calgary , Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family Medicine trainees are often assessed in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). The purpose of this survey is to document the quality in terms of psychometrics and standard setting of OSCEs as used in Family Practice (FP)/General Practice (GP) training programs. METHODS: Nine electronic data bases were searched from inception to December 2015 and included articles were searched in the PubMed single citation matcher. Two authors independently assessed all titles/abstracts/full texts and abstracted data. Articles were searched for OSCEs used for performance assessment of FP/GP trainees. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were identified which met our criteria published between 1987 and 2014. Content validity was reported in 18, construct validity in nine, and criterion (concurrent and/or predictive) validity in five. Five articles considered the consequences of testing. Internal reliability was reported by 12 studies, inter-rater reliability by seven, generalisability by four. Nine set pass-fail standards of which four were by criterion standards. In addition, we tabulated sources of validity and reliability as with particular reference to medical education. CONCLUSIONS: We found few articles which vigorously provided evidence of validity and reliability. Standard-setting, when done, was normative in all high stakes exams. OSCEs used for formative purposes had lower psychometric standards.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family Medicine trainees are often assessed in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). The purpose of this survey is to document the quality in terms of psychometrics and standard setting of OSCEs as used in Family Practice (FP)/General Practice (GP) training programs. METHODS: Nine electronic data bases were searched from inception to December 2015 and included articles were searched in the PubMed single citation matcher. Two authors independently assessed all titles/abstracts/full texts and abstracted data. Articles were searched for OSCEs used for performance assessment of FP/GP trainees. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were identified which met our criteria published between 1987 and 2014. Content validity was reported in 18, construct validity in nine, and criterion (concurrent and/or predictive) validity in five. Five articles considered the consequences of testing. Internal reliability was reported by 12 studies, inter-rater reliability by seven, generalisability by four. Nine set pass-fail standards of which four were by criterion standards. In addition, we tabulated sources of validity and reliability as with particular reference to medical education. CONCLUSIONS: We found few articles which vigorously provided evidence of validity and reliability. Standard-setting, when done, was normative in all high stakes exams. OSCEs used for formative purposes had lower psychometric standards.