在脊椎按摩方案中衡量欧安组织的质量:指标和建议审查。

IF 0.7 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Journal of Chiropractic Education Pub Date : 2023-09-29 DOI:10.7899/JCE-22-29
Alice E Cade, Nimrod Meuller
{"title":"在脊椎按摩方案中衡量欧安组织的质量:指标和建议审查。","authors":"Alice E Cade, Nimrod Meuller","doi":"10.7899/JCE-22-29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a commonly used assessment of clinical skill, and ensuring the quality and reliability in OSCEs is a complex, and on-going process. This paper discusses scoring schemas and reviews checklists and global rating scales (GRS) for marking. Also detailed are post-examination quality assurance metrics tailored to smaller cohorts, with an illustrative dataset.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A deidentified OSCE dataset, from stations with both a checklist and GRS, of 24 examinees from a 2021 cohort was assessed using the following metrics: Cut-scores or pass-rates, number-of-failures, R2, inter-grade discrimination, and between-group-variation. The results were used to inform a set of implementable recommendations to improve future OSCEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For most stations the calculated cut-score calculated was higher than the traditional pass of 50% (58.9.8-68.4%). Number-of-failures were low for traditional pass rates and cuts-scores (0.00-16.7%), excepting Lab Analysis where number-of-failures was 50.0%. R2 values ranged from 0.67-0.97, but proportion of total variance was high (67.3-95.9). These data suggest there were potential missed teaching concepts, that station marking was open to examiner interpretation, and there were inconsistencies in examiner marking.Recommendations included increasing checklist detail and using a weighted marking scale, separating some stations into dichotomous and key-feature checklists, using GRSs specific to each station, and reviewing all future OSCEs with the metrics described to guide refinements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The analysis used revealed several potential issues with the OSCE assessment. These findings informed recommendations to improve the quality of future examinations.</p>","PeriodicalId":44516,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11097219/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring the Quality of the OSCE in a Chiropractic Programme: A Review of Metrics and Recommendations.\",\"authors\":\"Alice E Cade, Nimrod Meuller\",\"doi\":\"10.7899/JCE-22-29\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a commonly used assessment of clinical skill, and ensuring the quality and reliability in OSCEs is a complex, and on-going process. This paper discusses scoring schemas and reviews checklists and global rating scales (GRS) for marking. Also detailed are post-examination quality assurance metrics tailored to smaller cohorts, with an illustrative dataset.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A deidentified OSCE dataset, from stations with both a checklist and GRS, of 24 examinees from a 2021 cohort was assessed using the following metrics: Cut-scores or pass-rates, number-of-failures, R2, inter-grade discrimination, and between-group-variation. The results were used to inform a set of implementable recommendations to improve future OSCEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For most stations the calculated cut-score calculated was higher than the traditional pass of 50% (58.9.8-68.4%). Number-of-failures were low for traditional pass rates and cuts-scores (0.00-16.7%), excepting Lab Analysis where number-of-failures was 50.0%. R2 values ranged from 0.67-0.97, but proportion of total variance was high (67.3-95.9). These data suggest there were potential missed teaching concepts, that station marking was open to examiner interpretation, and there were inconsistencies in examiner marking.Recommendations included increasing checklist detail and using a weighted marking scale, separating some stations into dichotomous and key-feature checklists, using GRSs specific to each station, and reviewing all future OSCEs with the metrics described to guide refinements.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The analysis used revealed several potential issues with the OSCE assessment. These findings informed recommendations to improve the quality of future examinations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Chiropractic Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11097219/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Chiropractic Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-22-29\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chiropractic Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-22-29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:目标结构化临床检查(OSCE)是一种常用的临床技能评估,确保OSCE的质量和可靠性是一个复杂且持续的过程。本文讨论了评分模式和评审清单以及用于评分的全球评分量表(GRS)。还详细介绍了针对较小队列量身定制的检查后质量保证指标,并提供了一个说明性数据集。方法:使用以下指标对来自2021年队列的24名考生的非识别欧安组织数据集进行评估:分数或通过率、失败次数、R2、年级间歧视和组间差异。结果用于提供一组可实施的建议,以改进未来的OSCE。结果:对于大多数车站,计算出的切入得分高于50%的传统通过率(58.9.8-68.4%)。传统通过率和切入得分的失败次数较低(0.001-16.7%),但实验室分析除外,其中失败次数为50.0%。R2值在0.67-0.97之间,但总方差的比例很高(67.3-95.9)。这些数据表明存在潜在的教学概念遗漏,车站评分对考官的解释是开放的,并且考官评分存在不一致性。建议包括增加检查表的详细信息并使用加权评分表,将一些台站分为二类和关键特征检查表,使用每个台站特有的GRS,并使用所述指标审查所有未来的OSCE,以指导改进。结论:所使用的分析揭示了欧安组织评估中的几个潜在问题。这些发现为提高未来考试质量提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Measuring the Quality of the OSCE in a Chiropractic Programme: A Review of Metrics and Recommendations.

Objectives: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a commonly used assessment of clinical skill, and ensuring the quality and reliability in OSCEs is a complex, and on-going process. This paper discusses scoring schemas and reviews checklists and global rating scales (GRS) for marking. Also detailed are post-examination quality assurance metrics tailored to smaller cohorts, with an illustrative dataset.

Methods: A deidentified OSCE dataset, from stations with both a checklist and GRS, of 24 examinees from a 2021 cohort was assessed using the following metrics: Cut-scores or pass-rates, number-of-failures, R2, inter-grade discrimination, and between-group-variation. The results were used to inform a set of implementable recommendations to improve future OSCEs.

Results: For most stations the calculated cut-score calculated was higher than the traditional pass of 50% (58.9.8-68.4%). Number-of-failures were low for traditional pass rates and cuts-scores (0.00-16.7%), excepting Lab Analysis where number-of-failures was 50.0%. R2 values ranged from 0.67-0.97, but proportion of total variance was high (67.3-95.9). These data suggest there were potential missed teaching concepts, that station marking was open to examiner interpretation, and there were inconsistencies in examiner marking.Recommendations included increasing checklist detail and using a weighted marking scale, separating some stations into dichotomous and key-feature checklists, using GRSs specific to each station, and reviewing all future OSCEs with the metrics described to guide refinements.

Conclusions: The analysis used revealed several potential issues with the OSCE assessment. These findings informed recommendations to improve the quality of future examinations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Chiropractic Education
Journal of Chiropractic Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
37.50%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chiropractic Education is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing research and scholarly articles pertaining to education theory, pedagogy, methodologies, practice, and other content relevant to the health professions academe. Journal contents are of interest to teachers, researchers, clinical educators, administrators, and students.
期刊最新文献
Patient satisfaction with clinical services provided by chiropractic students under supervision compared to licensed chiropractors: An observational study. Development of a new examination for the Canadian Chiropractic Examining Board. Improving diversity, equity, and inclusion in chiropractic education and profession: Report from three 2020-2021 summit meetings. Compliance with evidence-based radiographic imaging guidelines by chiropractic interns at a chiropractic training program. Comparison of mistakes on multiple-choice question and fill-in-the-blank examinations: A retrospective analysis.
×
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