Implicit versus explicit first impressions in performance-based assessment: will raters overcome their first impressions when learner performance changes?

First impressions can influence rater-based judgments but their contribution to rater bias is unclear. Research suggests raters can overcome first impressions in experimental exam contexts with explicit first impressions, but these findings may not generalize to a workplace context with implicit first impressions. The study had two aims. First, to assess if first impressions affect raters' judgments when workplace performance changes. Second, whether explicitly stating these impressions affects subsequent ratings compared to implicitly-formed first impressions. Physician raters viewed six videos where learner performance either changed (Strong to Weak or Weak to Strong) or remained consistent. Raters were assigned two groups. Group one (n = 23, Explicit) made a first impression global rating (FIGR), then scored learners using the Mini-CEX. Group two (n = 22, Implicit) scored learners at the end of the video solely with the Mini-CEX. For the Explicit group, in the Strong to Weak condition, the FIGR (M = 5.94) was higher than the Mini-CEX Global rating (GR) (M = 3.02, p < .001). In the Weak to Strong condition, the FIGR (M = 2.44) was lower than the Mini-CEX GR (M = 3.96 p < .001). There was no difference between the FIGR and the Mini-CEX GR in the consistent condition (M = 6.61, M = 6.65 respectively, p = .84). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the conditions when comparing both groups' Mini-CEX GR. Therefore, raters adjusted their judgments based on the learners' performances. Furthermore, raters who made their first impressions explicit showed similar rater bias to raters who followed a more naturalistic process.

Experience of introducing an electronic health records station in an objective structured clinical examination to evaluate medical students' communication skills in Canada: a descriptive study.

PURPOSE: There is limited literature related to the assessment of electronic medical record (EMR)-related competencies. To address this gap, this study explored the feasibility of an EMR objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) station to evaluate medical students' communication skills by psychometric analyses and standardized patients' (SPs) perspectives on EMR use in an OSCE. METHODS: An OSCE station that incorporated the use of an EMR was developed and pilot-tested in March 2020. Students' communication skills were assessed by SPs and physician examiners. Students' scores were compared between the EMR station and 9 other stations. A psychometric analysis, including item total correlation, was done. SPs participated in a post-OSCE focus group to discuss their perception of EMRs' effect on communication. RESULTS: Ninety-nine 3rd-year medical students participated in a 10-station OSCE that included the use of the EMR station. The EMR station had an acceptable item total correlation (0.217). Students who leveraged graphical displays in counseling received higher OSCE station scores from the SPs (P=0.041). The thematic analysis of SPs' perceptions of students' EMR use from the focus group revealed the following domains of themes: technology, communication, case design, ownership of health information, and timing of EMR usage. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating EMR in assessing learner communication skills in an OSCE. The EMR station had acceptable psychometric characteristics. Some medical students were able to efficiently use the EMRs as an aid in patient counseling. Teaching students how to be patient-centered even in the presence of technology may promote engagement.

Does allowing access to electronic differential diagnosis support threaten the reliability of a licensing exam?

INTRODUCTION: Newer electronic differential diagnosis supports (EDSs) are efficient and effective at improving diagnostic skill. Although these supports are encouraged in practice, they are prohibited in medical licensing examinations. The purpose of this study is to determine how using an EDS impacts examinees' results when answering clinical diagnosis questions. METHOD: The authors recruited 100 medical students from McMaster University (Hamilton, Ontario) to answer 40 clinical diagnosis questions in a simulated examination in 2021. Of these, 50 were first-year students and 50 were final-year students. Participants from each year of study were randomised into one of two groups. During the survey, half of the students had access to Isabel (an EDS) and half did not. Differences were explored using analysis of variance (ANOVA), and reliability estimates were compared for each group. RESULTS: Test scores were higher for final-year versus first-year students (53 ± 13% versus 29 ± 10, p < 0.001) and higher with the use of EDS (44 ± 28% versus 36 ± 26%, p < 0.001). Students using the EDS took longer to complete the test (p < 0.001). Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) increased with EDS use among final-year students but was reduced among first-year students, although the effect was not significant. A similar pattern was noted in item discrimination, which was significant. CONCLUSION: EDS use during diagnostic licensing style questions was associated with modest improvements in performance, increased discrimination in senior students and increased testing time. Given that clinicians have access to EDS in routine clinical practice, allowing EDS use for diagnostic questions would maintain ecological validity of testing while preserving important psychometric test characteristics.

Cancel culture: exploring the unintended consequences of cancelling the Canadian national licensing clinical examination.

Assessment drives learning. However, when it comes to high-stakes examinations (e.g., for licensure or certification), these assessments of learning may be seen as unnecessary hurdles by some. Licensing clinical skills assessment in particular have come under fire over the years. Recently, assessments such as the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part II, a clinical skills objective structured clinical examination, have been permanently cancelled. The authors explore potential consequences of this cancellation including those that are inadvertent and undesirable. Future next steps for clinical skills assessment are explored.

L'évaluation est le moteur de l'apprentissage. Cependant, lorsqu'il s'agit d'examens à enjeux élevés (par exemple, pour l'obtention du titre de licencié ou la certification), ces évaluations de l'apprentissage peuvent être perçues comme inutiles par certains. L'évaluation des compétences cliniques pour l'obtention du titre de licencié, en particulier, a été critiquée au fil des ans. Récemment, des évaluations comme l'examen d'aptitude du Conseil médical du Canada, partie II, un examen clinique objectif structuré permettant d'évaluer les compétences cliniques, ont été définitivement retirées. Les auteurs explorent les conséquences potentielles de l'annulation de ces évaluations incluant celles non intentionnelles et indésirables, ainsi que des perspectives sur l'évaluation des habiletés cliniques.

Written-Based Progress Testing: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Progress testing is an increasingly popular form of assessment in which a comprehensive test is administered to learners repeatedly over time. To inform potential users, this scoping review aimed to document barriers, facilitators, and potential outcomes of the use of written progress tests in higher education. METHOD: The authors followed Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology to identify and summarize the literature on progress testing. They searched 6 databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, ERIC, Education Source, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) on 2 occasions (May 22, 2018, and April 21, 2020) and included articles written in English or French and pertaining to written progress tests in higher education. Two authors screened articles for the inclusion criteria (90% agreement), then data extraction was performed by pairs of authors. Using a snowball approach, the authors also screened additional articles identified from the included reference lists. They completed a thematic analysis through an iterative process. RESULTS: A total of 104 articles were included. The majority of progress tests used a multiple-choice and/or true-or-false question format (95, 91.3%) and were administered 4 times a year (38, 36.5%). The most documented source of validity evidence was internal consistency (38, 36.5%). Four major themes were identified: (1) barriers and challenges to the implementation of progress testing (e.g., need for additional resources); (2) established collaboration as a facilitator of progress testing implementation; (3) factors that increase the acceptance of progress testing (e.g., formative use); and (4) outcomes and consequences of progress test use (e.g., progress testing contributes to an increase in knowledge). CONCLUSIONS: Progress testing appears to have a positive impact on learning, and there is significant validity evidence to support its use. Although progress testing is resource- and time-intensive, strategies such as collaboration with other institutions may facilitate its use.

Assessing the validity of an OSCE developed to assess rare, emergent or complex clinical conditions in endocrinology & metabolism.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of emergent, rare or complex medical conditions in Endocrinology and Metabolism (E&M) is an integral component of training. However, data is lacking on how this could be best achieved. The purpose of this study was to develop and administer an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) for E&M residents, and to gather validity evidence for its use. METHODS: A needs assessment survey was distributed to all Canadian E&M Program Directors and recent graduates to determine which topics to include in the OSCE. The top 5 topics were selected using a modified Delphi technique. OSCE cases based on these topics were subsequently developed. Five E&M residents (PGY4-5) and five junior Internal Medicine (IM) residents participated in the OSCE. Performance of E&M and IM residents was compared and results were analyzed using a Generalizability study. Examiners and candidates completed a survey following the OSCE to evaluate their experiences. RESULTS: The mean score of IM and E&M residents was 41.7 and 69.3 % (p < 0.001), respectively, with a large effect size (partial η2 = 0.75). Overall reliability of the OSCE was 0.74. Standard setting using a borderline regression method resulted in a pass rate of 100 % of E&M residents and 0 % of IM residents. All residents felt the OSCE had high value for learning as a formative exam. CONCLUSIONS: The E&M OSCE is a feasible method for assessing emergent, rare and complex medical conditions and this study provides validity evidence to support its use in a competency-based curriculum.

Are raters influenced by prior information about a learner? A review of assimilation and contrast effects in assessment.

Understanding which factors can impact rater judgments in assessments is important to ensure quality ratings. One such factor is whether prior performance information (PPI) about learners influences subsequent decision making. The information can be acquired directly, when the rater sees the same learner, or different learners over multiple performances, or indirectly, when the rater is provided with external information about the same learner prior to rating a performance (i.e., learner handover). The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize and highlight key concepts from multiple disciplines regarding the influence of PPI on subsequent ratings, discuss implications for assessment and provide a common conceptualization to inform research. Key findings include (a) assimilation (rater judgments are biased towards the PPI) occurs with indirect PPI and contrast (rater judgments are biased away from the PPI) with direct PPI; (b) negative PPI appears to have a greater effect than positive PPI; (c) when viewing multiple performances, context effects of indirect PPI appear to diminish over time; and (d) context effects may occur with any level of target performance. Furthermore, some raters are not susceptible to context effects, but it is unclear what factors are predictive. Rater expertise and training do not consistently reduce effects. Making raters more accountable, providing specific standards and reducing rater cognitive load may reduce context effects. Theoretical explanations for these findings will be discussed.

How biased are you? The effect of prior performance information on attending physician ratings and implications for learner handover.

Learner handover (LH), the process of sharing of information about learners between faculty supervisors, allows for longitudinal assessment fundamental in the competency-based education model. However, the potential to bias future assessments has been raised as a concern. The purpose of this study is to determine whether prior performance information such as LH influences the assessment of learners in the clinical context. Between December 2017 and June 2018, forty-two faculty members and final-year residents from the Department of Medicine at the University of Ottawa were assigned to one of three study groups through quasi-randomisation, taking into account gender, speciality and rater experience. In a counter-balanced design, each group received either positive, negative or no LH prior to watching six simulated learner-patient encounter videos. Participants rated each video using the mini-CEX and completed a questionnaire on the raters' general impressions of LH. A significant difference in the mean mini-CEX competency scale scores between the negative (M = 5.29) and positive (M = 5.97) LH groups (P < .001, d = 0.81) was noted. Similar findings were found for the single overall clinical competence ratings. In the post-study questionnaire, 22/28 (78%) of participants had correctly deduced the purpose of the study and 14/28 (50%) felt LH did not influence their assessment. LH influenced mini-CEX scores despite raters' awareness of the potential for bias. These results suggest that LH could influence a rater's performance assessment and careful consideration of the potential implications of LH is required.

Entrustment within an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) progress test: Bridging the gap towards competency-based medical education.

PURPOSE: Progress testing aligns well with competency-based medical education (CBME) frameworks, which stress the importance of continuous improvement. Entrustment is a useful assessment concept in CBME models. The purpose of this study was to explore the use of an entrustability rating scale within the context of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) Progress Test. METHODS: A 9-case OSCE Progress Test was administered to Internal Medicine residents (PGYs 1-4). Residents were assessed using a checklist (CL), global rating scale (GRS), training level rating scale (TLRS), and entrustability scale (ENT). Reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. Differences in performance by training year were explored using ANOVA and effect sizes were calculated using partial eta-squared. Examiners completed a post-examination survey. RESULTS: Ninety one residents and forty two examiners participated in the OSCE. Inter-station reliability was high for all instruments. There was an overall effect of training level for all instruments (p < 0.001). Effect sizes were large. 88% of examiners completed the survey. Most (62%) indicated feeling comfortable in making entrustment decisions during the OSCE. CONCLUSIONS: An entrustability scale can be used in an OSCE Progress Test to generate highly reliable ratings that discriminate between learners at different levels of training.

Potential of feedback during objective structured clinical examination to evoke an emotional response in medical students in Canada.

Feedback has been shown to be an important driver for learning. However, many factors, such as the emotional reactions feedback evokes, may impact its effect. This study aimed to explore medical students' perspectives on the verbal feedback they receive during an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE); their emotional reaction to this; and its impact on their subsequent performance. To do this, medical students enrolled at 4 Canadian medical schools were invited to complete a web-based survey regarding their experiences. One hundred and fifty-eight participants completed the survey. Twenty-nine percent of respondents asserted that they had experienced emotional reactions to verbal feedback received in an OSCE setting. The most common emotional responses reported were embarrassment and anxiousness. Some students (n=20) reported that the feedback they received negatively impacted subsequent OSCE performance. This study demonstrates that feedback provided during an OSCE has the ability to evoke an emotional response in students and to potentially impact subsequent performance.

Are rating scales really better than checklists for measuring increasing levels of expertise?

Background: It is a doctrine that OSCE checklists are not sensitive to increasing levels of expertise whereas rating scales are. This claim is based primarily on a study that used two psychiatry stations and it is not clear to what degree the finding generalizes to other clinical contexts. The purpose of our study was to reexamine the relationship between increasing training and scoring instruments within an OSCE.Approach: A 9-station OSCE progress test was administered to Internal Medicine residents in post-graduate years (PGY) 1-4. Residents were scored using checklists and rating scales. Standard scores from three administrations (27 stations) were analyzed.Findings: Only one station produced a result in which checklist scores did not increase as a function of training level, but the rating scales did. For 13 stations, scores increased as a function of PGY equally for both checklists and rating scales.Conclusion: Checklist scores were as sensitive to the level of training as rating scales for most stations, suggesting that checklists can capture increasing levels of expertise. The choice of which measure is used should be based on the purpose of the examination and not on a belief that one measure can better capture increases in expertise.

No observed effect from a student-led mock objective structured clinical examination on subsequent performance scores in medical students in Canada.

Student-led peer-assisted mock objective structured clinical examinations (MOSCEs) have been used in different settings to help students prepare for subsequent higher-stakes, faculty-run OSCEs. MOSCE participants generally valued feedback from peers and report benefits to learning. Our study investigated whether participation in a peer-assisted MOSCE affects subsequent OSCE performance. To determine whether mean OSCE scores differed depending on whether medical students participated in the MOSCE, we conducted a between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA), with cohort (2016 vs. 2017) and MOSCE participation (MOSCE vs. No MOSCE) as independent variables and mean OSCE score as the dependent variable. Participation in the MOSCE had no influence on mean OSCE scores (P=0.19). There was a significant correlation between mean MOSCE scores and mean OSCE scores (Pearson's r = 0.52, P<0.001). Whereas previous studies report self-reported benefits from participation in student-lead MOSCEs, it was not associated with objective benefits in this study.

The Influence of Prior Performance Information on Ratings of Current Performance and Implications for Learner Handover: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Learner handover (LH) is the sharing of information about trainees between faculty supervisors. This scoping review aimed to summarize key concepts across disciplines surrounding the influence of prior performance information (PPI) on current performance ratings and implications for LH in medical education. METHOD: The authors used the Arksey and O'Malley framework to systematically select and summarize the literature. Cross-disciplinary searches were conducted in six databases in 2017-2018 for articles published after 1969. To represent PPI relevant to LH in medical education, eligible studies included within-subject indirect PPI for work-type performance and rating of an individual current performance. Quantitative and thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 24,442 records identified through database searches and 807 through other searches, 23 articles containing 24 studies were included. Twenty-two studies (92%) reported an assimilation effect (current ratings were biased toward the direction of the PPI). Factors modifying the effect of PPI were observed, with larger effects for highly polarized PPI, negative (vs positive) PPI, and early (vs subsequent) performances. Specific standards, rater motivation, and certain rater characteristics mitigated context effects, whereas increased rater processing demands heightened them. Mixed effects were seen with nature of the performance and with rater expertise and training. CONCLUSIONS: PPI appears likely to influence ratings of current performance, and an assimilation effect is seen with indirect PPI. Whether these findings generalize to medical education is unknown, but they should be considered by educators wanting to implement LH. Future studies should explore PPI in medical education contexts and real-world settings.

Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil: Making a continued case for the use of MCQs in medical education.

Despite the increased emphasis on the use of workplace-based assessment in competency-based education models, there is still an important role for the use of multiple choice questions (MCQs) in the assessment of health professionals. The challenge, however, is to ensure that MCQs are developed in a way to allow educators to derive meaningful information about examinees' abilities. As educators' needs for high-quality test items have evolved so has our approach to developing MCQs. This evolution has been reflected in a number of ways including: the use of different stimulus formats; the creation of novel response formats; the development of new approaches to problem conceptualization; and the incorporation of technology. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide the reader with an overview of how our understanding of the use of MCQs in the assessment of health professionals has evolved to better measure clinical reasoning and to improve both efficiency and item quality.

The implementation and evaluation of an e-Learning training module for objective structured clinical examination raters in Canada.

Improving the reliability and consistency of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) raters' marking poses a continual challenge in medical education. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an e-Learning training module for OSCE raters who participated in the assessment of third-year medical students at the University of Ottawa, Canada. The effects of online training and those of traditional in-person (face-to-face) orientation were compared. Of the 90 physicians recruited as raters for this OSCE, 60 consented to participate (67.7%) in the study in March 2017. Of the 60 participants, 55 rated students during the OSCE, while the remaining 5 were back-up raters. The number of raters in the online training group was 41, while that in the traditional in-person training group was 19. Of those with prior OSCE experience (n= 18) who participated in the online group, 13 (68%) reported that they preferred this format to the in-person orientation. The total average time needed to complete the online module was 15 minutes. Furthermore, 89% of the participants felt the module provided clarity in the rater training process. There was no significant difference in the number of missing ratings based on the type of orientation that raters received. Our study indicates that online OSCE rater training is comparable to traditional face-to-face orientation.

Can physician examiners overcome their first impression when examinee performance changes?

There is an increasing focus on factors that influence the variability of rater-based judgments. First impressions are one such factor. First impressions are judgments about people that are made quickly and are based on little information. Under some circumstances, these judgments can be predictive of subsequent decisions. A concern for both examinees and test administrators is whether the relationship remains stable when the performance of the examinee changes. That is, once a first impression is formed, to what degree will an examiner be willing to modify it? The purpose of this study is to determine the degree that first impressions influence final ratings when the performance of examinees changes within the context of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Physician examiners (n = 29) viewed seven videos of examinees (i.e., actors) performing a physical exam on a single OSCE station. They rated the examinees' clinical abilities on a six-point global rating scale after 60 s (first impression or FIGR). They then observed the examinee for the remainder of the station and provided a final global rating (GRS). For three of the videos, the examinees' performance remained consistent throughout the videos. For two videos, examinee performance changed from initially strong to weak and for two videos, performance changed from initially weak to strong. The mean FIGR rating for the Consistent condition (M = 4.80) and the Strong to Weak condition (M = 4.87) were higher compared to their respective GRS ratings (M = 3.93, M = 2.73) with a greater decline for the Strong to Weak condition. The mean FIGR rating for the Weak to Strong condition was lower (3.60) than the corresponding mean GRS (4.81). This pattern of findings suggests that raters were willing to change their judgments based on examinee performance. Future work should explore the impact of making a first impression judgment explicit versus implicit and the role of context on the relationship between a first impression and a subsequent judgment.

Assessing the Validity of a Multidisciplinary Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise.

Construct: The purpose of this study was to provide validity evidence for the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) as an assessment tool for clinical skills in the workplace. BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated validity evidence for the mini-CEX, but most studies were carried out in internal medicine or single disciplines, therefore limiting generalizability of the findings. If the mini-CEX is to be used in multidisciplinary contexts, then validity evidence should be gathered in similar settings. The purpose of this study was to gather further validity evidence for the mini-CEX but in a broader context. Specifically we sought to explore the effects of discipline and rater type on mini-CEX scores, internal structure, and the relationship between mini-CEXs and OSCEs in a multidisciplinary context. APPROACH: During clerkship, medical students completed eight different rotations (family medicine, internal medicine, surgery, psychiatry, pediatrics, emergency, anesthesiology and obstetrics and gynecology). During each rotation, mini-CEX forms and a written examination were completed. Two multidisciplinary OSCEs (in Clerkship Year 3 and start of Year 4) assessed clinical skills. The reliability of the mini-CEX was assessed using Generalizability analyses. To assess the influence of discipline and rater type, mean scores were analyzed using a factorial analysis of variance. The total mini-CEX score was correlated to scores from the students' respective OSCEs and corresponding written exams. RESULTS: Eighty-two students met inclusion criteria for a total of 781 ratings (average of 9.82 mini-CEX forms per student). There was a significant effect of discipline (p < .001, = .16), and faculty provided lower scores than nonfaculty raters (7.12 vs. 7.41; p = .002, = .02). The g-coefficient was .53 when discipline was included as a facet and .23 when rater type was a facet. There were low, but statistically significant correlations between the mini-CEX and scores for the 4th-year OSCE Total Score and the OSCE communication scores, r(80) = .40, p < .001 and r(80) = .29, p = .009. The mini-CEX was not correlated with the written examination scores for any of the disciplines. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide conflicting findings for validity evidence for the mini-CEX. Mini-CEX ratings were correlated to multidisciplinary OSCEs but not written examinations, supporting the validity argument. However, reliability of the mini-CEX was low to moderate, and error accounted for the greatest amount of variability in scores. There was variation in scores due to discipline and resident raters gave higher scores than faculty. These results should be considered when considering the use of the mini-CEX in different contexts.

Twelve tips for developing an OSCE that measures what you want.

The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is used globally for both high and low stakes assessment. Despite its extensive use, very few published articles provide a set of best practices for developing an OSCE, and of those that do, none apply a modern understanding of validity. This article provides 12 tips for developing an OSCE guided by Kane's validity framework to ensure the OSCE is assessing what it purports to measure. The 12 tips are presented in the order they would be operationalized during OSCE development.

How do formative objective structured clinical examinations drive learning? Analysis of residents' perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: Although several studies have explored the relationship between learning and written tests, little is understood about how performance-based examinations influence learning. The purpose of this study was to explore how a formative objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) drives learning. METHODS: We administered surveys to residents (n = 35) at three time points to determine if and how an OSCE influenced their learning: before and immediately following the OSCE, and after the distribution of their results. Differences in quantitative responses between high- and low-performing residents and across time were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA. Thematic analysis was used to analyze narrative comments. RESULTS: Participants' goals for the OSCE related to performance, mastery and feedback. Almost all participants reported that they had learned something from the OSCE (94%) and most participants generated learning goals after the OSCE (71%). High performers appeared to recognize the importance of content-related knowledge for scoring well before and after the OSCE, whereas low performers may have under-estimated its importance until after the examination. DISCUSSION: Participants viewed a formative OSCE as both a hurdle to overcome (assessment of learning) and an opportunity to learn (assessment for learning). Understanding how OSCEs influence study behavior can help guide the development of assessments that promote learning.