ArticleBMC medical education2026
Script concordance test issues, the trail of expert calibration.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Script Concordance Test (SCT) is an assessment tool for clinical reasoning that incorporates uncertainty and depends on expert judgment to identify valid responses. Accurate calibration of expert judgment is important for maintaining validity and reliability; however, the literature has rarely addressed this issue and only through statistical methods. This study aimed to compare calibration strategies using statistical moderation and qualitative inspection.
methodsSixteen experts (n = 16) were recruited to complete 21 clinical vignettes, providing justification for each response. Seven calibration strategies—quantitative, qualitative, and mixed—were then analyzed using the Rasch Facet Model, with particular attention to expert homogeneity, data–model fit, and the quality of expert responses.
resultsNone of the strategies improved expert homogeneity. However, mixed strategies enhanced data–model fit and response quality, and helped address issues related to response process and content validity.
conclusionsCalibrating expert judgment using a mixed strategy appears valuable for improving the quality of expert-generated data within an SCT framework. This calibration may address specific psychometric limitations of SCTs and enhance training quality through Learning by Concordance methods.
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.