Observational studyBMC medical education2025
Exploring an online clinical competency assessment: an alternative to a traditional in-person assessment for internationally trained physiotherapists.
Observational study in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe assessment of clinical competence is crucial for the education and accreditation of health professionals. Although traditional in-person methods, such as objective structured clinical examinations and case-based clinical assessments are widely used, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted the exploration of online formats. This study examined conducting a clinical case-based assessment in an online environment as an alternative to a traditional in-person assessment for evaluating the competence of internationally trained physiotherapists seeking registration in Australia.
methodsA single-cohort observational study was conducted, where participants completed both online and in-person assessments. Participants were internationally trained physiotherapists seeking registration in Australia. Participants were scored as pass/fail on 8 domains and for overall outcome. Data were analysed by calculating pass/fail rates, absolute agreement, false negative and positive rates and predictive values.
resultsThere was a 63% agreement in outcomes between each format, with comparable pass rates (online: 54%, in-person: 68%, p = 0.09). The online assessment demonstrated a strong positive predictive value (79%), indicating its potential to regularly predict competence as determined by the in-person assessment. However, online pass rates were significantly lower than in-person pass rates (60% and 78% respectively, p = 0.04) for the domain that scored competency in hands-on skills.
conclusionThe findings suggest that online assessment could serve as a viable alternative to the in-person assessment. However, further refinements may be needed to address hands-on skill assessment in online assessments. This study adds to the current evidence base supporting the use of online assessments as an alternative to traditional in-person methods for evaluating clinical competence.
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.