ArticleBMC medical education2024
Development of a validated assessment tool for medical students using simulated patients: an 8-year panel survey.
Article in BMC medical education, 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of simulated patients (SPs) to assess medical students' clinical performance is gaining prominence, underscored by patient safety perspective. However, few reports have investigated the validity of such assessment. Here, we examined the validity and reliability of an assessment tool that serves as a standardized tool for SPs to assess medical students' medical interview.
methodsThis longitudinal survey was conducted at Keio University School of Medicine in Japan from 2014 to 2021. To establish content validity, the simulated patient assessment tool (SPAT) was developed by several medical education specialists from 2008 to 2013. A cohort of 36 SPs assessed the performance of 831 medical students in clinical practice medical interview sessions from April 2014 to December 2021. The assessment's internal structure was analyzed using descriptive statistics (maximum, minimum, median, mean, and standard deviation) for the SPAT's 13 item total scores. Structural validity was examined with exploratory factor analysis, and internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The mean SPAT total scores across different SPs and scenarios were compared using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Convergent validity was determined by correlating SPAT with the post-clinical clerkship obstructive structured clinical examination (post-CC OSCE) total scores using Pearson's correlation coefficient.
resultsOf the 831 assessment sheets, 36 with missing values were excluded, leaving 795 for analysis. Thirty-five SPs, excluding one SP who quit in 2014, completed 795 assessments, for a response rate of 95.6%. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors, communication and physician performance. The overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.929. Significant differences in SPAT total scores were observed across SPs and scenarios via one-way ANOVA. A moderate correlation (r =.212, p <.05) was found between SPAT and post-CC OSCE total scores, indicating convergent validity.
conclusionsEvidence for the validity of SPAT was examined. These findings may be useful in the standardization of SP assessment of the scenario-based clinical performance of medical students.
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.