ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2024
Inter-observer variance of examiner scoring in urology Objective Structured Clinical Examinations.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding contexts and mechanisms through which video based benchmarking promotes alignment of examiners' scoring in objective structured clinical exams.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2026Article
- Reliable Assessment of Healthcare Procedures: A Comparison of On-Site and Video-Based Methods.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Educating the Educator: Understanding Essential Components of Contemporary Urology Residency Training.Current urology reports · 2025Review
- Hawks and doves, differing content, scoring systems, and delivery platforms: No wonder there's variability in grades.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024Article
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
introductionThe Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is an attractive tool of competency assessment in a high-stakes summative exam. An advantage of the OSCE is the ability to assess more realistic context, content, and procedures. Each year, the Queen's Urology Exam Skills Training (QUEST) is attended by graduating Canadian urology residents to simulate their upcoming board exams. The exam consists of a written component and an OSCE. The aim of this study was to determine the inter-observer consistency of scoring between two examiners of an OSCE for a given candidate.
methodsThirty-nine participants in 2020 and 37 participants in 2021 completed four stations of OSCEs virtually over the Zoom platform. Each candidate was examined and scored independently by two different faculty urologists in a blinded fashion at each station. The OSCE scoring consisted of a checklist rating scale for each question. An intra-class correlation (ICC) analysis was conducted to determine the inter-rater reliability of the two examiners for each of the four OSCE stations in both the 2020 and 2021 OSCEs.
resultsFor the 2020 data, the prostate cancer station scores were most strongly correlated (ICC 0.746, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.556-0.862, p<0.001). This was followed by the general urology station (ICC 0.688, 95% CI 0.464-0.829, p<0.001), the urinary incontinence station (ICC 0.638, 95% CI 0.403-0.794, p<0.001), and finally the nephrolithiasis station (ICC 0.472, 95% CI 0.183-0.686, p<0.001). For the 2021 data, the renal cancer station had the highest ICC at 0.866 (95% CI 0.754-0.930, p<0.001). This was followed by the nephrolithiasis station (ICC 0.817, 95% CI 0.673-0.901, p<0.001), the pediatric station (ICC 0.809, 95% CI 0.660-0.897, p<0.001), and finally the andrology station (ICC 0.804, 95% CI 0.649-0.895, p<0.001). A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for all stations, and all show a positive correlation with global exam scores. It is noteworthy that some stations were more predictive of overall performance, but this did not necessarily mean better ICC scores for these stations.
conclusionsGiven a specific clinical scenario in an OSCE exam, inter-rater reliability of scoring can be compromised on occasion. Care should be taken when high-stakes decisions about promotion are made based on OSCEs with limited standardization.
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.