Observational studyJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2025
Correlation between task-based checklists and global rating scores in undergraduate objective structured clinical examinations in Saudi Arabia: a 1-year comparative study.
Observational study in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 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.
- The effectiveness of the "Early clinical exposure" course based on narrative medicine in cultivating the professional qualities of undergraduates in clinical medicine: a mixed-methods study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Agreement and reliability of global rating versus checklist scores in a high-stakes undergraduate OSCE in Rwanda.BMC medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study investigated the correlation between task-based checklist scores and global rating scores (GRS) in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) for fourth-year undergraduate medical students and aimed to determine whether both methods can be reliably used in a standard setting.
methodsA comparative observational study was conducted at Al Rayan College of Medicine, Saudi Arabia, involving 93 fourth-year students during the 2023-2024 academic year. OSCEs from 2 General Practice courses were analyzed, each comprising 10 stations assessing clinical competencies. Students were scored using both task-specific checklists and holistic 5-point GRS. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's α, and the relationship between the 2 scoring methods was assessed using the coefficient of determination (R2). Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained.
resultsThe mean OSCE score was 76.7 in Course 1 (Cronbach's α=0.85) and 73.0 in Course 2 (Cronbach's α=0.81). R2 values varied by station and competency. Strong correlations were observed in procedural and management skills (R2 up to 0.87), while weaker correlations appeared in history-taking stations (R2 as low as 0.35). The variability across stations highlighted the context-dependence of alignment between checklist and GRS methods.
conclusionBoth checklists and GRS exhibit reliable psychometric properties. Their combined use improves validity in OSCE scoring, but station-specific application is recommended. Checklists may anchor pass/fail decisions, while GRS may assist in assessing borderline performance. This hybrid model increases fairness and reflects clinical authenticity in competency-based assessment.
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.