Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36600366›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Enhancing authenticity, diagnosticity and

Peter Yeates, Adriano Maluf, Ruth Kinston, Natalie Cope, Gareth McCray, Kathy Cullen, Vikki O'Neill, Aidan Cole, Rhian Goodfellow, Rebecca Vallender and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Peter YeatesSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK p.yeates@keele.ac.uk.
Adriano MalufSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8375-0533
Ruth KinstonSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Natalie CopeSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Gareth McCraySchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
Kathy CullenSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Vikki O'NeillSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Aidan ColeSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Rhian GoodfellowSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Rebecca VallenderSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Ching-Wa ChungSchool of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
Robert K McKinleySchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3684-3435
Richard FullerSchool of Medicine, University of Liverpool Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Liverpool, UK.
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford Division of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5384-4157
Keele University · GBQueen's University Belfast · GBCardiff University · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionObjective structured clinical exams (OSCEs) are a cornerstone of assessing the competence of trainee healthcare professionals, but have been criticised for (1) lacking authenticity, (2) variability in examiners' judgements which can challenge assessment equivalence and (3) for limited diagnosticity of trainees' focal strengths and weaknesses. In response, this study aims to investigate whether (1) sharing integrated-task OSCE stations across institutions can increase perceived authenticity, while (2) enhancing assessment equivalence by enabling comparison of the standard of examiners' judgements between institutions using a novel methodology (video-based score comparison and adjustment (VESCA)) and (3) exploring the potential to develop more diagnostic signals from data on students' performances. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will use a complex intervention design, developing, implementing and sharing an integrated-task (research) OSCE across four UK medical schools. It will use VESCA to compare examiner scoring differences between groups of examiners and different sites, while studying how, why and for whom the shared OSCE and VESCA operate across participating schools. Quantitative analysis will use Many Facet Rasch Modelling to compare the influence of different examiners groups and sites on students' scores, while the operation of the two interventions (shared integrated task OSCEs; VESCA) will be studied through the theory-driven method of Realist evaluation. Further exploratory analyses will examine diagnostic performance signals within data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be extra to usual course requirements and all participation will be voluntary. We will uphold principles of informed consent, the right to withdraw, confidentiality with pseudonymity and strict data security. The study has received ethical approval from Keele University Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be academically published and will contribute to good practice guidance on (1) the use of VESCA and (2) sharing and use of integrated-task OSCE stations.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateStudents, MedicalClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicSchools, MedicalEDUCATION & TRAINING (see Medical Education & Training)MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAININGQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID36600366
OpenAlexW4310809449

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.