Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30575092›Full record

ArticleMedical education2019

Developing a video-based method to compare and adjust examiner effects in fully nested OSCEs.

Peter Yeates, Natalie Cope, Ashley Hawarden, Hannah Bradshaw, Gareth McCray, Matt Homer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Towards a more nuanced conceptualisation of differential examiner stringency in OSCEs.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Pass/fail decisions and standards: the impact of differential examiner stringency on OSCE outcomes.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Peter YeatesMedical School Education Research Group (MERG), Keele University School of Medicine, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6316-4051
Natalie CopeMedical School Education Research Group (MERG), Keele University School of Medicine, Keele, UK.
Ashley HawardenRoyal Stoke Hospital, University Hospital of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke on Trent, UK.
Hannah BradshawRoyal Stoke Hospital, University Hospital of North Midlands NHS Trust, Stoke on Trent, UK.
Gareth McCrayInstitute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Matt HomerSchool of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1161-5938

Funding

Department of Health CS-2017-17-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough averaging across multiple examiners' judgements reduces unwanted overall score variability in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE), designs involving several parallel circuits of the OSCE require that different examiner cohorts collectively judge performances to the same standard in order to avoid bias. Prior research suggests the potential for important examiner-cohort effects in distributed or national examinations that could compromise fairness or patient safety, but despite their importance, these effects are rarely investigated because fully nested assessment designs make them very difficult to study. We describe initial use of a new method to measure and adjust for examiner-cohort effects on students' scores.

methodsWe developed video-based examiner score comparison and adjustment (VESCA): volunteer students were filmed 'live' on 10 out of 12 OSCE stations. Following the examination, examiners additionally scored station-specific common-comparator videos, producing partial crossing between examiner cohorts. Many-facet Rasch modelling and linear mixed modelling were used to estimate and adjust for examiner-cohort effects on students' scores.

resultsAfter accounting for students' ability, examiner cohorts differed substantially in their stringency or leniency (maximal global score difference of 0.47 out of 7.0 [Cohen's d = 0.96]; maximal total percentage score difference of 5.7% [Cohen's d = 1.06] for the same student ability by different examiner cohorts). Corresponding adjustment of students' global and total percentage scores altered the theoretical classification of 6.0% of students for both measures (either pass to fail or fail to pass), whereas 8.6-9.5% students' scores were altered by at least 0.5 standard deviations of student ability.

conclusionsDespite typical reliability, the examiner cohort that students encountered had a potentially important influence on their score, emphasising the need for adequate sampling and examiner training. Development and validation of VESCA may offer a means to measure and adjust for potential systematic differences in scoring patterns that could exist between locations in distributed or national OSCE examinations, thereby ensuring equivalence and fairness.

Indexed as

Observer VariationClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansReproducibility of ResultsStudents, MedicalVideotape Recordingassessmentassessor variabilityOSCEspsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID30575092
PMCPMC6519246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.