Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training

2003; Wiley; Volume: 37; Issue: 11 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01674.x

1365-2923

Brian Hodges, Jodi Herold McIlroy,

Radiology practices and education

Medical EducationVolume 37, Issue 11 p. 1012-1016 Analytic global OSCE ratings are sensitive to level of training Brian Hodges, Brian Hodges Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, Ontario, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorJodi Herold McIlroy, Jodi Herold McIlroy Department of Psychiatry and Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Ontario, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author Brian Hodges, Brian Hodges Wilson Centre for Research in Education, University of Toronto, Ontario, CanadaSearch for more papers by this authorJodi Herold McIlroy, Jodi Herold McIlroy Department of Psychiatry and Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Ontario, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 22 October 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01674.xCitations: 148 Dr Brian Hodges, Director, University of Toronto Wilson Centre for Research in Education, Toronto General Hospital, 1 Eaton/200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada. Tel.: 00 1 416 340 3646; Fax: 00 1 416 340 3792; E-mail: brian.hodges@utoronto.ca Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Purpose There are several reasons for using global ratings in addition to checklists for scoring objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) stations. However, there has been little evidence collected regarding the validity of these scales. This study assessed the construct validity of an analytic global rating with 4 component subscales: empathy, coherence, verbal and non-verbal expression. Methods A total of 19 Year 3 and 38 Year 4 clinical clerks were scored on content checklists and these global ratings during a 10-station OSCE. T-tests were used to assess differences between groups for overall checklist and global scores, and for each of the 4 subscales. Results The mean global rating was significantly higher for senior clerks (75·5% versus 71·3%, t55 = 2·12, P < 0·05) and there were significant differences by level of training for the coherence (t55 = 3·33, P < 0·01) and verbal communication (t55 = 2·33, P < 0·05) subscales. Interstation reliability was 0·70 for the global rating and ranged from 0·58 to 0·65 for the subscales. Checklist reliability was 0·54. Conclusion In this study, a summated analytic global rating demonstrated construct validity, as did 2 of the 4 scales measuring specific traits. In addition, the analytic global rating showed substantially higher internal consistency than did the checklists, a finding consistent with that seen in previous studies cited in the literature. Global ratings are an important element of OSCE measurement and can have good psychometric properties. However, OSCE researchers should clearly describe the type of global ratings they use. Further research is needed to define the most effective global rating scales. Citing Literature Volume37, Issue11November 2003Pages 1012-1016 RelatedInformation