ArticleBMC medical education2025
Evaluating construct validity of virtual osces in exceptional conditions.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative discussion on the impact of respiratory infectious diseases on dental education in China: implications for curriculum design and student outcomes.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Progress in educational theory and translational implementation of simulation-based education for healthcare professionals: an integrative analysis from theory to effectiveness.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to medical education, requiring adaptations in assessment methodologies to maintain academic rigor and safety. Traditional in-person Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) posed challenges due to social distancing requirements, leading to the emergence of virtual OSCEs as viable alternatives. This study evaluates the construct validity of a virtual OSCE with a focus on its applicability during extraordinary circumstances.
methodsThe study involved 27 third-year medical students participating in a virtual OSCE comprising seven stations, each designed to assess critical clinical competencies such as history-taking, differential diagnosis, and communication skills. The OSCE's validity was assessed across four dimensions: content, response process, internal structure, and consequences, using psychometric and qualitative analyses.
resultsContent validity was ensured through alignment with a predefined blueprint and expert review of clinical scenarios. The response process was supported by comprehensive training for faculty and simulated patients (SPs), contributing to consistent scoring and comfort with the virtual format. Psychometric analysis showed a Cronbach's alpha of 0.67 across stations, indicating acceptable internal consistency. Consequential validity, assessed via the Borderline Regression Method (BRM) for setting cut-scores, highlighted fair and defensible decision-making. Despite technical challenges, no students failed the OSCE or their clerkship.
conclusionThe virtual OSCE has proven to be a valid, reliable, and feasible tool for assessing clinical competencies. Virtual OSCEs offer a scalable solution to sustain medical education continuity in resource-limited and geographically dispersed settings, paving the way for advancements in global competency-based assessments.
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.