ArticleCureus2023
A Comparison of the Checklist Scoring Systems, Global Rating Systems, and Borderline Regression Method for an Objective Structured Clinical Examination for a Small Cohort in a Saudi Medical School.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the effectiveness of using the checklist and global rating scores to evaluate the clinical competency of medical students in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). Additionally, the study assesses the appropriateness of using the borderline regression method to set standards for small-scale OSCE exams and determines if the estimated passing marks differ significantly from the university's prefixed passing score of 70%. The study also examines whether the university should utilize the borderline regression method to determine passing scores for each OSCE exam instead of a set passing score.
methodsThe study analyzed medical students' grades in 11 OSCE exams in the 2022-2023 academic year at Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Students received family medicine clerkship rotations, and after each rotation, they took an OSCE exam consisting of three stations that family medicine consultants graded. The exam included a checklist of 30 tasks and a five-level global rank scale. The study collected all the checklist marks and global rank grades and analyzed them using IBM® Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS® Statistics) software. The statistical tests used were descriptive statistics, the T-test, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact test, and Pearson correlation.
resultsThe study showed that students were more likely to pass when using the global rating system than the checklist scoring system. Additionally, students had a significantly lower passing rate when using the higher cut-off passing score estimated using the borderline regression method compared to the pre-set passing score of 70% established by the university (with a p-value of 0.00).
conclusionEach scoring system has advantages and disadvantages, but they complement each other. Combining scoring systems can produce a more comprehensive and precise evaluation of a candidate's performance. The study also emphasizes the importance of carefully selecting and validating cut-off points in OSCE exams to ensure fairness and consistency in assessment.
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.