ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Ensuring equivalence in high-stakes performance exams is important for patient safety and candidate fairness. We compared inter-school examiner differences within a shared OSCE and resulting impact on students' pass/fail categorisation. METHODS: The same 6 station formative OSCE ran asynchronously in 4 medical schools, with 2 parallel circuits/school. We compared examiners' judgements using Video-based Examiner Score Comparison and Adjustment (VESCA): examiners scored station-specific comparator videos in addition to 'live' student performances, enabling 1/controlled score comparisons by a/examiner-cohorts and b/schools and 2/data linkage to adjust for the influence of examiner-cohorts. We calculated score impact and change in pass/fail categorisation by school. RESULTS: On controlled video-based comparisons, inter-school variations in examiners' scoring (16.3%) were nearly double within-school variations (8.8%). Students' scores received a median adjustment of 5.26% (IQR 2.87-7.17%). The impact of adjusting for examiner differences on students' pass/fail categorisation varied by school, with adjustment reducing failure rate from 39.13% to 8.70% (school 2) whilst increasing failure from 0.00% to 21.74% (school 4). DISCUSSION: Whilst the formative context may partly account for differences, these findings query whether variations may exist between medical schools in examiners' judgements. This may benefit from systematic appraisal to safeguard equivalence. VESCA provided a viable method for comparisons.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Whilst rarely researched, the authenticity with which Objective Structured Clinical Exams (OSCEs) simulate practice is arguably critical to making valid judgements about candidates' preparedness to progress in their training. We studied how and why an OSCE gave rise to different experiences of authenticity for different participants under different circumstances. METHODS: We used Realist evaluation, collecting data through interviews/focus groups from participants across four UK medical schools who participated in an OSCE which aimed to enhance authenticity. RESULTS: Several features of OSCE stations (realistic, complex, complete cases, sufficient time, autonomy, props, guidelines, limited examiner interaction etc) combined to enable students to project into their future roles, judge and integrate information, consider their actions and act naturally. When this occurred, their performances felt like an authentic representation of their clinical practice. This didn't work all the time: focusing on unavoidable differences with practice, incongruous features, anxiety and preoccupation with examiners' expectations sometimes disrupted immersion, producing inauthenticity. CONCLUSIONS: The perception of authenticity in OSCEs appears to originate from an interaction of station design with individual preferences and contextual expectations. Whilst tentatively suggesting ways to promote authenticity, more understanding is needed of candidates' interaction with simulation and scenario immersion in summative assessment.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Objective structured clinical exams (OSCEs) are a cornerstone of assessing the competence of trainee healthcare professionals, but have been criticised for (1) lacking authenticity, (2) variability in examiners' judgements which can challenge assessment equivalence and (3) for limited diagnosticity of trainees' focal strengths and weaknesses. In response, this study aims to investigate whether (1) sharing integrated-task OSCE stations across institutions can increase perceived authenticity, while (2) enhancing assessment equivalence by enabling comparison of the standard of examiners' judgements between institutions using a novel methodology (video-based score comparison and adjustment (VESCA)) and (3) exploring the potential to develop more diagnostic signals from data on students' performances. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will use a complex intervention design, developing, implementing and sharing an integrated-task (research) OSCE across four UK medical schools. It will use VESCA to compare examiner scoring differences between groups of examiners and different sites, while studying how, why and for whom the shared OSCE and VESCA operate across participating schools. Quantitative analysis will use Many Facet Rasch Modelling to compare the influence of different examiners groups and sites on students' scores, while the operation of the two interventions (shared integrated task OSCEs; VESCA) will be studied through the theory-driven method of Realist evaluation. Further exploratory analyses will examine diagnostic performance signals within data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be extra to usual course requirements and all participation will be voluntary. We will uphold principles of informed consent, the right to withdraw, confidentiality with pseudonymity and strict data security. The study has received ethical approval from Keele University Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be academically published and will contribute to good practice guidance on (1) the use of VESCA and (2) sharing and use of integrated-task OSCE stations.
