Suppr超能文献

加勒比地区一所医学院客观结构化临床考试标准设定方法的比较

Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School.

作者信息

Dwivedi Neelam Rekha, Vijayashankar Narasimha Prasad, Hansda Manisha, Dubey Arun Kumar, Nwachukwu Fidelis, Curran Vernon, Jillwin Joseph

机构信息

Xavier University School of Medicine, Oranjestad, Aruba.

Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada.

出版信息

J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020 Dec 28;7:2382120520981992. doi: 10.1177/2382120520981992. eCollection 2020 Jan-Dec.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

OSCE are widely used for assessing clinical skills training in medical schools. Use of traditional pass fail cut off yields wide variations in the results of different cohorts of students. This has led to a growing emphasis on the application of standard setting procedures in OSCEs.

PURPOSE/AIM: The purpose of the study was comparing the utility, feasibility and appropriateness of 4 different standard setting methods with OSCEs at XUSOM.

METHODS

A 15-station OSCE was administered to 173 students over 6 months. Five stations were conducted for each organ system (Respiratory, Gastrointestinal and Cardiovascular). Students were assessed for their clinical skills in 15 stations. Four different standard setting methods were applied and compared with a control (Traditional method) to establish cut off scores for pass/fail decisions.

RESULTS

OSCE checklist scores revealed a Cronbach's alpha of 0.711, demonstrating acceptable level of internal consistency. About 13 of 15 OSCE stations performed well with "Alpha if deleted values" lower that 0.711 emphasizing the reliability of OSCE stations. The traditional standard setting method (cut off score of 70) resulted in highest failure rate. The Modified Angoff Method and Relative methods yielded the lowest failure rates, which were typically less than 10% for each system. Failure rates for the Borderline methods ranged from 28% to 57% across systems.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, Modified Angoff method and Borderline regression method have shown to be consistently reliable and practically suitable to provide acceptable cut-off score across different organ system. Therefore, an average of Modified Angoff Method and Borderline Regression Method appeared to provide an acceptable cutoff score in OSCE. Further studies, in high-stake clinical examinations, utilizing larger number of judges and OSCE stations are recommended to reinforce the validity of combining multiple methods for standard setting.

摘要

背景

客观结构化临床考试(OSCE)被广泛用于评估医学院校的临床技能培训。使用传统的及格/不及格分数线会导致不同批次学生的考试结果差异很大。这使得人们越来越重视在OSCE中应用标准设定程序。

目的

本研究的目的是比较四种不同标准设定方法在XUSOM的OSCE中的实用性、可行性和适用性。

方法

在6个月内对173名学生进行了一场包含15个考站的OSCE。每个器官系统(呼吸、胃肠和心血管)设置5个考站。在15个考站对学生的临床技能进行评估。应用四种不同的标准设定方法,并与对照组(传统方法)进行比较,以确定及格/不及格判定的分数线。

结果

OSCE检查表分数的克朗巴哈系数为0.711,表明内部一致性水平可接受。15个OSCE考站中有13个表现良好,“删除项后的α值”低于0.711,强调了OSCE考站的可靠性。传统的标准设定方法(分数线为70分)导致最高的不及格率。改良的安格夫方法和相对方法产生的不及格率最低,每个系统通常低于10%。边界线方法的不及格率在各系统中从28%到57%不等。

结论

在我们的研究中,改良的安格夫方法和边界线回归方法已被证明始终可靠且实际适用,能够为不同器官系统提供可接受的分数线。因此,改良的安格夫方法和边界线回归方法的平均值似乎能在OSCE中提供可接受的分数线。建议在高风险临床考试中进行进一步研究,使用更多的评判人员和OSCE考站,以加强多种标准设定方法结合的有效性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d965/7780167/7d47e785741f/10.1177_2382120520981992-fig1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验