Swift Marcie, Spake Ellen, Gajewski Byron J
Department of Physical Therapy Education, Rockhurst University, 1100 Rockhurst Road, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA. Tel 816-501-4871, fax 816-501-4643.
J Allied Health. 2013 Winter;42(4):214-22.
The reliability and validity of various Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) have been well documented in the medical and nursing literature. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of exam preparation methods on student performance and student satisfaction for an OSCE used to assess doctoral physical therapist students.
Sixty-five physical therapist students from two post-professional physical therapist programs were randomized to a rubric exam preparation group and a nonrubric exam preparation group for a musculoskeletal OSCE.
The OSCE was a midterm practical exam for a peripheral joint musculoskeletal course. Upon completion of the exam, all students completed a post-exam satisfaction survey.
The results of the 2 x 2 ANCOVA that examined performance and satisfaction on the OSCE indicated a significant interaction between the group assignment and program, p<0.028, for performance, and that satisfaction scores between the rubric and nonrubric groups and program were not significant for any of the questions asked on the post-examination survey.
Despite the reported benefit of utilizing rubrics, the findings of this study did not show a difference in student performance or satisfaction when using a rubric to prepare for an OSCE.
各种客观结构化临床考试（OSCE）的可靠性和有效性在医学和护理文献中已有充分记载。本研究的目的是探讨考试准备方法对用于评估物理治疗博士生的OSCE中学生成绩和学生满意度的影响。
来自两个专业后物理治疗项目的65名物理治疗学生被随机分为用于肌肉骨骼OSCE的评分标准考试准备组和非评分标准考试准备组。
OSCE是外周关节肌肉骨骼课程的期中实践考试。考试结束后，所有学生完成了考试后满意度调查。
对OSCE成绩和满意度进行的2×2协方差分析结果表明，分组和项目之间在成绩方面存在显著交互作用，p<0.028，并且在考试后调查中提出的任何问题上，评分标准组和非评分标准组以及项目之间的满意度得分均无显著差异。
尽管有报道称使用评分标准有好处，但本研究结果表明，在使用评分标准准备OSCE时，学生成绩或满意度没有差异。
