ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2024
Feasibility and reliability of the pandemic-adapted online-onsite hybrid graduation OSCE in Japan.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reliable Assessment of Healthcare Procedures: A Comparison of On-Site and Video-Based Methods.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is widely used to assess medical students' clinical skills. Virtual OSCEs were used in place of in-person OSCEs during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, their reliability is yet to be robustly analyzed. By applying generalizability (G) theory, this study aimed to evaluate the reliability of a hybrid OSCE, which admixed in-person and online methods, and gain insights into improving OSCEs' reliability. During the 2020-2021 hybrid OSCEs, one examinee, one rater, and a vinyl mannequin for physical examination participated onsite, and a standardized simulated patient (SP) for medical interviewing and another rater joined online in one virtual breakout room on an audiovisual conferencing system. G-coefficients and 95% confidence intervals of the borderline score, namely border zone (BZ), under the standard 6-station, 2-rater, and 6-item setting were calculated. G-coefficients of in-person (2017-2019) and hybrid OSCEs (2020-2021) under the standard setting were estimated to be 0.624, 0.770, 0.782, 0.759, and 0.823, respectively. The BZ scores were estimated to be 2.43-3.57, 2.55-3.45, 2.59-3.41, 2.59-3.41, and 2.51-3.49, respectively, in the score range from 1 to 6. Although hybrid OSCEs showed reliability comparable to in-person OSCEs, they need further improvement as a very high-stakes examination. In addition to increasing clinical vignettes, having more proficient online/on-demand raters and/or online SPs for medical interviews could improve the reliability of OSCEs. Reliability can also be ensured through supplementary examination and by increasing the number of online raters for a small number of students within the BZs.
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.