Examining clinical skills and abilities in psychology – implementation and evaluation of an objective structured clinical examination in psychology

A. Sundström, Camilla Hakelind
{"title":"Examining clinical skills and abilities in psychology – implementation and evaluation of an objective structured clinical examination in psychology","authors":"A. Sundström, Camilla Hakelind","doi":"10.1108/jmhtep-10-2021-0124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nAssessment of complex clinical skills and abilities is a challenge in mental health education. In the present study, an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was adapted to psychology and implemented in a Master in Psychology program. The purpose of the present study was to examine aspects of validity of this OSCE.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA total of 55 students enrolled in the Master in the Psychology program at Umeå University, Sweden, participated in two OSCE occasions. In addition to OSCE data, questionnaires were administered immediately after the OSCE to students (n = 18) and examiners (n = 13) to examine their perceptions of the OSCE.\n\n\nFindings\nThe results provided support for different aspects of validity. The level of internal consistency was close to acceptable, and there was a good correspondence between global ratings and checklist scores for many stations. However, adding an additional category to the global rating scale and reviewing some of the station checklists might improve the assessment further. The present cut-score of the OSCE was comparable to a cut-score set by the borderline regression model. In general, students and examiners perceived the OSCE as a high-quality examination, although examiners raised some issues that could improve the OSCE further.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nIn conclusion, OSCE is a promising assessment in psychology, both from a psychometric perspective and from a test-taker and examiner perspective. The present study is an important contribution to the field as there are only a few examples where OSCE has been used in clinical psychology, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to evaluate the validity of such an assessment.\n","PeriodicalId":75090,"journal":{"name":"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice","volume":"191 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of mental health training, education, and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmhtep-10-2021-0124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose Assessment of complex clinical skills and abilities is a challenge in mental health education. In the present study, an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was adapted to psychology and implemented in a Master in Psychology program. The purpose of the present study was to examine aspects of validity of this OSCE. Design/methodology/approach A total of 55 students enrolled in the Master in the Psychology program at Umeå University, Sweden, participated in two OSCE occasions. In addition to OSCE data, questionnaires were administered immediately after the OSCE to students (n = 18) and examiners (n = 13) to examine their perceptions of the OSCE. Findings The results provided support for different aspects of validity. The level of internal consistency was close to acceptable, and there was a good correspondence between global ratings and checklist scores for many stations. However, adding an additional category to the global rating scale and reviewing some of the station checklists might improve the assessment further. The present cut-score of the OSCE was comparable to a cut-score set by the borderline regression model. In general, students and examiners perceived the OSCE as a high-quality examination, although examiners raised some issues that could improve the OSCE further. Originality/value In conclusion, OSCE is a promising assessment in psychology, both from a psychometric perspective and from a test-taker and examiner perspective. The present study is an important contribution to the field as there are only a few examples where OSCE has been used in clinical psychology, and to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to evaluate the validity of such an assessment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
检验心理学临床技能和能力-心理学客观结构化临床检查的实施和评价
目的复杂临床技能和能力的评估是心理健康教育面临的挑战。在本研究中,客观结构化临床检查(OSCE)适用于心理学,并在心理学硕士课程中实施。本研究的目的是检查该欧安组织有效性的各个方面。设计/方法/方法瑞典尤梅夫大学心理学硕士课程共有55名学生参加了欧安组织的两次活动。除了欧安组织的数据外,在欧安组织结束后立即对学生(n = 18)和考官(n = 13)进行问卷调查,以检查他们对欧安组织的看法。结果对效度的不同方面提供了支持。内部一致性的水平接近于可接受的水平,许多电台的全球评级和核对表得分之间有很好的对应关系。但是,在全球评级表中增加一个额外的类别并审查一些电台的检查清单可能会进一步改善评估。欧安组织目前的分数线与边界回归模型设定的分数线相当。总的来说,学生和考官认为欧安组织是一次高质量的考试,尽管考官提出了一些可以进一步改进欧安组织的问题。综上所述,无论是从心理测量学的角度还是从测试者和考官的角度来看,OSCE都是一个很有前途的心理学评估。目前的研究是对该领域的重要贡献,因为只有少数例子将欧安组织用于临床心理学,据作者所知,这篇论文是第一个评估这种评估的有效性的论文。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mindful self-compassion training program in the family caregivers of patients with cancer: a quasi-experimental study Pedagogical considerations for enhancing peer support training in an online university environment Comparing the attitudes of junior doctors towards mental and physical ill-health: a survey of trainees in North London “Improved access, delayed accreditation, low recognition”: perspectives of mental health educators, preceptors and students on the Kintampo Project in Ghana Analysis and mapping of scientific literature on virtual and augmented reality technologies used in the context of mental health disorders (1980 – 2021)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1