Cargando…

Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School

BACKGROUND: OSCE are widely used for assessing clinical skills training in medical schools. Use of traditional pass fail cut off yields wide variations in the results of different cohorts of students. This has led to a growing emphasis on the application of standard setting procedures in OSCEs. PURP...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dwivedi, Neelam Rekha, Vijayashankar, Narasimha Prasad, Hansda, Manisha, Dubey, Arun Kumar, Nwachukwu, Fidelis, Curran, Vernon, Jillwin, Joseph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7780167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33447662
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120520981992
_version_ 1783631460286070784
author Dwivedi, Neelam Rekha
Vijayashankar, Narasimha Prasad
Hansda, Manisha
Dubey, Arun Kumar
Nwachukwu, Fidelis
Curran, Vernon
Jillwin, Joseph
author_facet Dwivedi, Neelam Rekha
Vijayashankar, Narasimha Prasad
Hansda, Manisha
Dubey, Arun Kumar
Nwachukwu, Fidelis
Curran, Vernon
Jillwin, Joseph
author_sort Dwivedi, Neelam Rekha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: OSCE are widely used for assessing clinical skills training in medical schools. Use of traditional pass fail cut off yields wide variations in the results of different cohorts of students. This has led to a growing emphasis on the application of standard setting procedures in OSCEs. PURPOSE/AIM: The purpose of the study was comparing the utility, feasibility and appropriateness of 4 different standard setting methods with OSCEs at XUSOM. METHODS: A 15-station OSCE was administered to 173 students over 6 months. Five stations were conducted for each organ system (Respiratory, Gastrointestinal and Cardiovascular). Students were assessed for their clinical skills in 15 stations. Four different standard setting methods were applied and compared with a control (Traditional method) to establish cut off scores for pass/fail decisions. RESULTS: OSCE checklist scores revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.711, demonstrating acceptable level of internal consistency. About 13 of 15 OSCE stations performed well with “Alpha if deleted values” lower that 0.711 emphasizing the reliability of OSCE stations. The traditional standard setting method (cut off score of 70) resulted in highest failure rate. The Modified Angoff Method and Relative methods yielded the lowest failure rates, which were typically less than 10% for each system. Failure rates for the Borderline methods ranged from 28% to 57% across systems. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, Modified Angoff method and Borderline regression method have shown to be consistently reliable and practically suitable to provide acceptable cut-off score across different organ system. Therefore, an average of Modified Angoff Method and Borderline Regression Method appeared to provide an acceptable cutoff score in OSCE. Further studies, in high-stake clinical examinations, utilizing larger number of judges and OSCE stations are recommended to reinforce the validity of combining multiple methods for standard setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7780167
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77801672021-01-13 Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School Dwivedi, Neelam Rekha Vijayashankar, Narasimha Prasad Hansda, Manisha Dubey, Arun Kumar Nwachukwu, Fidelis Curran, Vernon Jillwin, Joseph J Med Educ Curric Dev Original Research BACKGROUND: OSCE are widely used for assessing clinical skills training in medical schools. Use of traditional pass fail cut off yields wide variations in the results of different cohorts of students. This has led to a growing emphasis on the application of standard setting procedures in OSCEs. PURPOSE/AIM: The purpose of the study was comparing the utility, feasibility and appropriateness of 4 different standard setting methods with OSCEs at XUSOM. METHODS: A 15-station OSCE was administered to 173 students over 6 months. Five stations were conducted for each organ system (Respiratory, Gastrointestinal and Cardiovascular). Students were assessed for their clinical skills in 15 stations. Four different standard setting methods were applied and compared with a control (Traditional method) to establish cut off scores for pass/fail decisions. RESULTS: OSCE checklist scores revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.711, demonstrating acceptable level of internal consistency. About 13 of 15 OSCE stations performed well with “Alpha if deleted values” lower that 0.711 emphasizing the reliability of OSCE stations. The traditional standard setting method (cut off score of 70) resulted in highest failure rate. The Modified Angoff Method and Relative methods yielded the lowest failure rates, which were typically less than 10% for each system. Failure rates for the Borderline methods ranged from 28% to 57% across systems. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, Modified Angoff method and Borderline regression method have shown to be consistently reliable and practically suitable to provide acceptable cut-off score across different organ system. Therefore, an average of Modified Angoff Method and Borderline Regression Method appeared to provide an acceptable cutoff score in OSCE. Further studies, in high-stake clinical examinations, utilizing larger number of judges and OSCE stations are recommended to reinforce the validity of combining multiple methods for standard setting. SAGE Publications 2020-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7780167/ /pubmed/33447662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120520981992 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Dwivedi, Neelam Rekha
Vijayashankar, Narasimha Prasad
Hansda, Manisha
Dubey, Arun Kumar
Nwachukwu, Fidelis
Curran, Vernon
Jillwin, Joseph
Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School
title Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School
title_full Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School
title_fullStr Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School
title_short Comparing Standard Setting Methods for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in a Caribbean Medical School
title_sort comparing standard setting methods for objective structured clinical examinations in a caribbean medical school
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7780167/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33447662
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120520981992
work_keys_str_mv AT dwivedineelamrekha comparingstandardsettingmethodsforobjectivestructuredclinicalexaminationsinacaribbeanmedicalschool
AT vijayashankarnarasimhaprasad comparingstandardsettingmethodsforobjectivestructuredclinicalexaminationsinacaribbeanmedicalschool
AT hansdamanisha comparingstandardsettingmethodsforobjectivestructuredclinicalexaminationsinacaribbeanmedicalschool
AT dubeyarunkumar comparingstandardsettingmethodsforobjectivestructuredclinicalexaminationsinacaribbeanmedicalschool
AT nwachukwufidelis comparingstandardsettingmethodsforobjectivestructuredclinicalexaminationsinacaribbeanmedicalschool
AT curranvernon comparingstandardsettingmethodsforobjectivestructuredclinicalexaminationsinacaribbeanmedicalschool
AT jillwinjoseph comparingstandardsettingmethodsforobjectivestructuredclinicalexaminationsinacaribbeanmedicalschool