ArticleGMS journal for medical education2020
Predictive validity of a tool to resolve borderline grades in OSCEs.
Article in GMS journal for medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Equal Z standard-setting method to estimate the minimum number of panelists for a medical school’s objective structured clinical examination in Taiwan: a simulation studyJournal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2022Article
- Empirical analysis comparing the tele-objective structured clinical examination (teleOSCE) and the in-person assessment in Australia.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2021Observational
- After the game is before the game!GMS journal for medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is inconclusive evidence suggesting which standard setting method yields the highest validity for pass/fail decisions in examinations. The Objective Borderline Method 2 (OBM2) is a decision-making tool for reclassification of borderline grades to clear pass or clear fail grades to resolve examiner uncertainty for high-stakes pass/fail decisions. This study evaluated the predictive validity of OBM2 pass/fail decisions, using consecutive years' Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) results within a medical cohort (n=271) at the University of New South Wales, Australia. OBM2 decisions in one OSCE (n=687) were compared to marks obtained in a subsequent OSCE via independent samples T-tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The extent of the relationship between these two variables determines the predictive validity of OBM2 decisions, given that past student grades are capable of predicting future performance. OBM2 decisions in an initial OSCE were found to have a statistically significant predictive nature for subsequent OSCE marks (p=.005). For initial decisions which reclassified to a pass grade, subsequent OSCE marks were significantly higher than for the cases where initial decisions were reclassified to a fail grade. Stronger associations were identified between related assessment domains/criteria compared to unrelated domains/criteria (Cohen's d=.469 vs Cohen's d=.388 respectively). Through demonstrating the OBM2 decisions' predictive association across exams there is support for the OBM2's predictive validity, deeming it a promising method to be used for resolving examiner uncertainty when making pass/fail decisions within OSCEs.
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.