ArticleBMC medical education2026
Agreement and reliability of global rating versus checklist scores in a high-stakes undergraduate OSCE in Rwanda.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) being widely used in the assessment of clinical competency, the optimal scoring systems remains debatable with limited data from sub-Saharan Africa. This study compared the performance, reliability, and agreement between global rating scales (GRS) and checklist scores at a comprehensive exit examination for undergraduate medical students in Rwanda.
methodsThis cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted during the final 'Exit Exams' of undergraduate medical students at the University of Global Health Equity, Rwanda. The OSCE included 15 stations spread across major clinical specialties and subspecialties. Each station had a checklist with a total score of 20 marks and a three-level GRS (failed, borderline, or passed).
resultsA total of 36 students took part in the OSCE examinations. The mean (standard deviation) checklist score was 84.3 (5.3) %, which was lower than the mean GRS score, 94.3 (6.9) %, p < 0.001. All students achieved overall scores above the standard-setting pass mark of 64.4% [set from modified Angoff method], on both scoring systems. While no student failed any station using checklist scores, the GRS identified failures in stations 5 and 6 (one student each), and stations 7 and 13 (two students each). Overall internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) across all the stations was 0.760 [ranged from - 0.216 (station 15) to 0.746 (station 9)]. Pearson correlation demonstrated a very strong positive correlation between the checklist and GRS (r = 0.924, p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plot showed a mean (standard deviation) of difference of 10.01 (2.8) in favor of GRS, with a lower and upper limit of agreement of 4.44 to 15.58 respectively.
conclusionChecklist and GRS scores in the OSCEs demonstrated strong positive correlation, but GRS showed a higher discriminatory ability, identifying performance differences that checklists did not capture. Incorporating GRS alongside checklists may enhance the robustness of high-stakes clinical 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.