ArticlePEC innovation2023
Are evaluations in simulated medical encounters reliable among rater types? A comparison between standardized patient and outside observer ratings of OSCEs.
Article in PEC innovation, 2023. 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.
- Measuring empathy in OSCEs: A comparison of student, standardized patient, and observer rating tools.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Assessment of simulated participant professional performance in health professional education: a scoping review.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Review
- Validating simulated patient programmes in Obstetrics and Gynaecology education: a mixed-method study on training effectiveness and stakeholder perceptions in the GCC.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: By analyzing Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) evaluations of first-year interns' communication with standardized patients (SP), our study aimed to examine the differences between ratings of SPs and a set of outside observers with training in healthcare communication. Methods: Immediately following completion of OSCEs, SPs evaluated interns' communication skills using 30 items. Later, two observers independently coded video recordings using the same items. We conducted two-tailed t-tests to examine differences between SP and observers' ratings. Results: Rater scores differed significantly on 21 items (p < .05), with 20 of the 21 differences due to higher SP in-person evaluation scores. Items most divergent between SPs and observers included items related to empathic communication and nonverbal communication. Conclusion: Differences between SP and observer ratings should be further investigated to determine if additional rater training is needed or if a revised evaluation measure is needed. Educators may benefit from adjusting evaluation criteria to decrease the number of items raters must complete and may do so by encompassing more global questions regarding various criteria. Furthermore, evaluation measures may be strengthened by undergoing reliability and validity testing. Innovation: This study highlights the strengths and limitations to rater types (observers or SPs), as well as evaluation methods (recorded or in-person).
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.