Literature DB >> 33290124

Conjunctive standards in OSCEs: The why and the how of number of stations passed criteria.

Matt Homer1, Jen Russell1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Many institutions require candidates to achieve a minimum number of OSCE stations passed (MNSP) in addition to the aggregate pass mark. The stated rationale is usually that this conjunctive standard prevents excessive degrees of compensation across an assessment. However, there is a lack of consideration and discussion of this practice in the medical education literature.
METHODS: We consider the motivations for the adoption of the MNSP from the assessment designer perspective, outlining potential concerns about the complexity of what the OSCE is trying to achieve, particularly around the blueprinting process and the limitations of scoring instruments. We also introduce four potential methods for setting an examinee-centred MNSP standard, and highlight briefly the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION: There are psychometric arguments for and against the limiting of compensation in OSCEs, but it is clear that many stakeholders value the application of an MNSP standard. This paper adds to the limited literature on this important topic and notes that current MNSP practices are often problematic in high stakes settings. More empirical work is needed to develop understanding of the impact on pass/fail decision-making of the proposed standard setting methods developed in this paper.

Keywords:  OSCE; assessment; standard setting

Year:  2020        PMID: 33290124     DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1856353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Teach        ISSN: 0142-159X            Impact factor:   3.650


  3 in total

1.  Pass/fail decisions and standards: the impact of differential examiner stringency on OSCE outcomes.

Authors:  Matt Homer
Journal:  Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 3.629

2.  Determining influence, interaction and causality of contrast and sequence effects in objective structured clinical exams.

Authors:  Peter Yeates; Alice Moult; Natalie Cope; Gareth McCray; Richard Fuller; Robert McKinley
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 7.647

3.  Is the assumption of equal distances between global assessment categories used in borderline regression valid?

Authors:  Patrick J McGown; Celia A Brown; Ann Sebastian; Ricardo Le; Anjali Amin; Andrew Greenland; Amir H Sam
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-10-05       Impact factor: 3.263

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.