ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
The equivalence of a high-stakes objective structured clinical exam adapted to suit a virtual delivery format.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. 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.
- The equivalence of a high-stakes objective structured clinical exam adapted to suit a virtual delivery format.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid adaptation of clinical competence assessments, including the transition of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) from in-person to virtual formats. This study investigates the construct equivalence of a high-stakes OSCE, originally designed for in-person delivery, when adapted for a virtual format.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using OSCE scores from the Internationally Educated Nurse Competency Assessment Program (IENCAP®). Data were collected from 15 exam administrations between January 2018 and June 2022, encompassing 2021 examinees (1936 in-person, 85 virtual). The Many-Facet Rasch Measurement (MFRM) model was employed to analyze the invariance of examinee ability, case difficulty, and criteria difficulty across in-person and virtual formats.
resultsResults revealed overall examinee ability estimates remained invariant regardless of the OSCE format, while invariant violations were identified in only three of the 15 cases (N = 20%) adapted to suit the virtual format. The most significant adaptation, namely the use of a verbal physical examination to suit the virtual context achieved equivalence to its hands-on in-person counterpart given evidence of invariance across criteria estimates. Interestingly, criteria scores in invariant violated cases displayed a higher level of stability or consistency across the virtual OSCE formats versus their in-person counterpart highlighting a potential benefit of the virtual versus in-person format and potentially linked to the verbal physical examination.
conclusionThe study found that while examinee ability and case difficulty estimates exhibited some invariance between in-person and virtual OSCE formats, criteria involving physical assessments faced challenges in maintaining construct equivalence. These findings highlight the need for careful consideration in adapting high-stakes clinical assessments to virtual formats to ensure fairness and reliability.
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.