ArticleBMC medical education2026
Abdominal ultrasound performance assessment: a comparison of generic and extended OSCE rating scales.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObjective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) are a widely used tool for assessing ultrasound competence, yet the optimal format for its rating scales remains debated. Extended, task-specific rating scales may offer detailed guidance, while more generic scales offer broader applicability and ease of use. This study compares whether and how ratings differed when using an extended versus a generic rating scale for assessing performance in basic abdominal ultrasound skills.
methodsIn this single-centre cohort study, 80 medical students participated in an OSCE for abdominal ultrasound rated by both an extended and generic rating scale in parallel. Five domains were evaluated: image settings, transducer handling, examination technique, image explanation and overall performance. Each OSCE station was rated by two assessors simultaneously, one using each scale.
resultsThe generic rating scale demonstrated significantly higher internal consistency (mean Cronbach’s α generic 0.803 vs. extended 0.699; p = 0.011) and a higher generalisability (Phi generic 0.529 vs. extended 0.466). Absolute ratings on the generic rating scale were significantly lower (performance P generic 75.38% vs. extended 77.99%, p < 0.001), though in-between stations difficulty was only significantly different for two stations.
conclusionIn total, the generic rating scale showed a more stringent rating with a higher internal consistency and a higher variance due to participants’ performance. Therefore, a well-designed generic rating scale can reliably and efficiently assess basic abdominal ultrasound performance, possibly offering greater generalisability and simpler implementation than extended task specific rating scales.
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.