Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions

Research articles

Acceptability of the 8-case objective structured clinical examination of medical students in Korea using generalizability theory: a reliability study: Song Yi Park, Sang-Hwa Lee, Min-Jeong Kim, Ki-Hwan Ji, Ji Ho Ryu; J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2022;19:26. Published online September 8, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2022.19.26

2,767 View
215 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Purpose
This study investigated whether the reliability was acceptable when the number of cases in the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) decreased from 12 to 8 using generalizability theory (GT).
Methods
This psychometric study analyzed the OSCE data of 439 fourth-year medical students conducted in the Busan and Gyeongnam areas of South Korea from July 12 to 15, 2021. The generalizability study (G-study) considered 3 facets—students (p), cases (c), and items (i)—and designed the analysis as p×(i:c) due to items being nested in a case. The acceptable generalizability (G) coefficient was set to 0.70. The G-study and decision study (D-study) were performed using G String IV ver. 6.3.8 (Papawork, Hamilton, ON, Canada).
Results
All G coefficients except for July 14 (0.69) were above 0.70. The major sources of variance components (VCs) were items nested in cases (i:c), from 51.34% to 57.70%, and residual error (pi:c), from 39.55% to 43.26%. The proportion of VCs in cases was negligible, ranging from 0% to 2.03%.
Conclusion
The case numbers decreased in the 2021 Busan and Gyeongnam OSCE. However, the reliability was acceptable. In the D-study, reliability was maintained at 0.70 or higher if there were more than 21 items/case in 8 cases and more than 18 items/case in 9 cases. However, according to the G-study, increasing the number of items nested in cases rather than the number of cases could further improve reliability. The consortium needs to maintain a case bank with various items to implement a reliable blueprinting combination for the OSCE.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Applying the Generalizability Theory to Identify the Sources of Validity Evidence for the Quality of Communication Questionnaire
Flávia Del Castanhel, Fernanda R. Fonseca, Luciana Bonnassis Burg, Leonardo Maia Nogueira, Getúlio Rodrigues de Oliveira Filho, Suely Grosseman
American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®.2024; 41(7): 792. CrossRef

Comparing the cut score for the borderline group method and borderline regression method with norm-referenced standard setting in an objective structured clinical examination in medical school in Korea: Song Yi Park, Sang-Hwa Lee, Min-Jeong Kim, Ki-Hwan Ji, Ji Ho Ryu; J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2021;18:25. Published online September 27, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.25

6,017 View
313 Download
2 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
Setting standards is critical in health professions. However, appropriate standard setting methods do not always apply to the set cut score in performance assessment. The aim of this study was to compare the cut score when the standard setting is changed from the norm-referenced method to the borderline group method (BGM) and borderline regression method (BRM) in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in medical school.
Methods
This was an explorative study to model the implementation of the BGM and BRM. A total of 107 fourth-year medical students attended the OSCE at 7 stations for encountering standardized patients (SPs) and at 1 station for performing skills on a manikin on July 15th, 2021. Thirty-two physician examiners evaluated the performance by completing a checklist and global rating scales.
Results
The cut score of the norm-referenced method was lower than that of the BGM (P<0.01) and BRM (P<0.02). There was no significant difference in the cut score between the BGM and BRM (P=0.40). The station with the highest standard deviation and the highest proportion of the borderline group showed the largest cut score difference in standard setting methods.
Conclusion
Prefixed cut scores by the norm-referenced method without considering station contents or examinee performance can vary due to station difficulty and content, affecting the appropriateness of standard setting decisions. If there is an adequate consensus on the criteria for the borderline group, standard setting with the BRM could be applied as a practical and defensible method to determine the cut score for OSCE.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Analyzing the Quality of Objective Structured Clinical Examination in Alborz University of Medical Sciences
Suleiman Ahmadi, Amin Habibi, Mitra Rahimzadeh, Shahla Bahrami
Alborz University Medical Journal.2023; 12(4): 485. CrossRef
Possibility of using the yes/no Angoff method as a substitute for the percent Angoff method for estimating the cutoff score of the Korean Medical Licensing Examination: a simulation study
Janghee Park
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2022; 19: 23. CrossRef
Newly appointed medical faculty members’ self-evaluation of their educational roles at the Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine in 2020 and 2021: a cross-sectional survey-based study
Sun Kim, A Ra Cho, Chul Woon Chung
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2021; 18: 28. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search