ArticleNeurology2015
Neurology objective structured clinical examination reliability using generalizability theory.
Article in Neurology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Virtual reality-based neurological examination teaching tool(VRNET) versus standardized patient in teaching neurological examinations for the medical students: a randomized, single-blind study.BMC medical education · 2021Trial
- Review
- Education Research: A Qualitative Analysis of Communication-Focused Feedback Provided to Child Neurology Residents During an Objective Structured Clinical Examination.Neurology. Education · 2025Article
- Neurology Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Short-form development of the specific module of the QLICD-CRF(V2.0) for assessing the quality of life of patients with chronic renal failure.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Acceptability of the 8-case objective structured clinical examination of medical students in Korea using generalizability theory: a reliability studyJournal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2022Article
- Generalizability of High Frequency Oscillation Evaluations in the Ripple Band.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
- What NEXT for Neurology Education and Assessment?Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study examines factors affecting reliability, or consistency of assessment scores, from an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in neurology through generalizability theory (G theory).
methodsData include assessments from a multistation OSCE taken by 194 medical students at the completion of a neurology clerkship. Facets evaluated in this study include cases, domains, and items. Domains refer to areas of skill (or constructs) that the OSCE measures. G theory is used to estimate variance components associated with each facet, derive reliability, and project the number of cases required to obtain a reliable (consistent, precise) score.
resultsReliability using G theory is moderate (Φ coefficient = 0.61, G coefficient = 0.64). Performance is similar across cases but differs by the particular domain, such that the majority of variance is attributed to the domain. Projections in reliability estimates reveal that students need to participate in 3 OSCE cases in order to increase reliability beyond the 0.70 threshold.
conclusionsThis novel use of G theory in evaluating an OSCE in neurology provides meaningful measurement characteristics of the assessment. Differing from prior work in other medical specialties, the cases students were randomly assigned did not influence their OSCE score; rather, scores varied in expected fashion by domain assessed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.