1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Developing a video‐based method to compare and adjust examiner effects in fully nested OSCEs

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Although averaging across multiple examiners’ judgements reduces unwanted overall score variability in objective structured clinical examinations ( OSCE), designs involving several parallel circuits of the OSCE require that different examiner cohorts collectively judge performances to the same standard in order to avoid bias. Prior research suggests the potential for important examiner‐cohort effects in distributed or national examinations that could compromise fairness or patient safety, but despite their importance, these effects are rarely investigated because fully nested assessment designs make them very difficult to study. We describe initial use of a new method to measure and adjust for examiner‐cohort effects on students’ scores.

          Methods

          We developed video‐based examiner score comparison and adjustment ( VESCA): volunteer students were filmed ‘live’ on 10 out of 12 OSCE stations. Following the examination, examiners additionally scored station‐specific common‐comparator videos, producing partial crossing between examiner cohorts. Many‐facet Rasch modelling and linear mixed modelling were used to estimate and adjust for examiner‐cohort effects on students’ scores.

          Results

          After accounting for students’ ability, examiner cohorts differed substantially in their stringency or leniency (maximal global score difference of 0.47 out of 7.0 [Cohen's d = 0.96]; maximal total percentage score difference of 5.7% [Cohen's d = 1.06] for the same student ability by different examiner cohorts). Corresponding adjustment of students’ global and total percentage scores altered the theoretical classification of 6.0% of students for both measures (either pass to fail or fail to pass), whereas 8.6–9.5% students’ scores were altered by at least 0.5 standard deviations of student ability.

          Conclusions

          Despite typical reliability, the examiner cohort that students encountered had a potentially important influence on their score, emphasising the need for adequate sampling and examiner training. Development and validation of VESCA may offer a means to measure and adjust for potential systematic differences in scoring patterns that could exist between locations in distributed or national OSCE examinations, thereby ensuring equivalence and fairness.

          Abstract

          Finding that scores by different groups of examiners can differ by a whole standard deviation of student ability, the authors offer a video‐based method to address examiner‐cohort effects in OSCEs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

          In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes.

              We use a utility model to illustrate that, firstly, selecting an assessment method involves context-dependent compromises, and secondly, that assessment is not a measurement problem but an instructional design problem, comprising educational, implementation and resource aspects. In the model, assessment characteristics are differently weighted depending on the purpose and context of the assessment. Of the characteristics in the model, we focus on reliability, validity and educational impact and argue that they are not inherent qualities of any instrument. Reliability depends not on structuring or standardisation but on sampling. Key issues concerning validity are authenticity and integration of competencies. Assessment in medical education addresses complex competencies and thus requires quantitative and qualitative information from different sources as well as professional judgement. Adequate sampling across judges, instruments and contexts can ensure both validity and reliability. Despite recognition that assessment drives learning, this relationship has been little researched, possibly because of its strong context dependence. When assessment should stimulate learning and requires adequate sampling, in authentic contexts, of the performance of complex competencies that cannot be broken down into simple parts, we need to make a shift from individual methods to an integral programme, intertwined with the education programme. Therefore, we need an instructional design perspective. Programmatic instructional design hinges on a careful description and motivation of choices, whose effectiveness should be measured against the intended outcomes. We should not evaluate individual methods, but provide evidence of the utility of the assessment programme as a whole.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                p.yeates@keele.ac.uk
                Journal
                Med Educ
                Med Educ
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2923
                MEDU
                Medical Education
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0308-0110
                1365-2923
                21 December 2018
                March 2019
                : 53
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/medu.2019.53.issue-3 )
                : 250-263
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Medical School Education Research Group (MERG) Keele University School of Medicine Keele UK
                [ 2 ] Department of Acute Medicine Fairfield General Hospital Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Bury UK
                [ 3 ] Royal Stoke Hospital University Hospital of North Midlands NHS Trust Stoke on Trent UK
                [ 4 ] Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences Keele University Keele UK
                [ 5 ] School of Education University of Leeds Leeds UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence: Peter Yeates, School of Medicine, David Weatherall Building, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG, UK. Tel: 00 44 1782 733930; E‐mail:  p.yeates@ 123456keele.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6316-4051
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1161-5938
                Article
                MEDU13783
                10.1111/medu.13783
                6519246
                30575092
                b710baa6-82a7-4aae-9712-ad06f0fabdc0
                © 2018 The Authors. Medical Education published by Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd;

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 22 June 2018
                : 14 August 2018
                : 07 November 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Pages: 14, Words: 8323
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist Award
                Funded by: NIHR
                Categories
                Assessment
                Assessment
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                medu13783
                March 2019
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:5.6.2.1 mode:remove_FC converted:15.05.2019

                Education
                assessment,osces,assessor variability,psychometrics
                Education
                assessment, osces, assessor variability, psychometrics

                Comments

                Comment on this article