Search

Background: The administration of performance assessments during the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic posed many challenges, especially for examinations employed as part of certification and licensure. The National Assessment Collaboration (NAC) Examination, an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), was modified during the pandemic. The purpose of this study was to gather evidence to support the reliability and validity of the modified NAC Examination., Methods: The modified NAC Examination was delivered to 2,433 candidates in 2020 and 2021. Cronbach's alpha, decision consistency, and accuracy values were calculated. Validity evidence includes comparisons of scores and sub-scores for demographic groups: gender (male vs. female), type of International Medical Graduate (IMG) (Canadians Studying Abroad (CSA) vs. non-CSA), postgraduate training (PGT) (no PGT vs. PGT), and language of examination (English vs. French). Criterion relationships were summarized using correlations within and between the NAC Examination and the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination (MCCQE) Part I scores., Results: Reliability estimates were consistent with other OSCEs similar in length and previous NAC Examination administrations. Both total score and sub-score differences for gender were statistically significant. Total score differences by type of IMG and PGT were not statistically significant, but sub-score differences were statistically significant. Administration language was not statistically significant for either the total scores or sub-scores. Correlations were all statistically significant with some relationships being small or moderate (0.20 to 0.40) or large (> 0.40)., Conclusions: The NAC Examination yields reliable total scores and pass/fail decisions. Expected differences in total scores and sub-scores for defined groups were consistent with previous literature, and internal relationships amongst NAC Examination sub-scores and their external relationships with the MCCQE Part I supported both discriminant and criterion-related validity arguments. Modifications to OSCEs to address health restrictions can be implemented without compromising the overall quality of the assessment. This study outlines some of the validity and reliability analyses for OSCEs that required modifications due to COVID., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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.

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 η 2  = 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Changes in gay and bisexual men's connectedness to the gay community are related to the declining public visibility of HIV/AIDS and greater acceptance for homosexuality and bisexuality in mainstream society. Little work, however, has focused on perceived acceptance for subgroups within the gay community or broader society. Using interviews (n = 20) and a survey (n = 202) of gay and bisexual men in a mid-sized Canadian city, we find perceived hierarchies of acceptance for the various subgroups as well as an age effect wherein middle-aged men perceive the least acceptance for all groups. These differences are linked with the uneven impact of social, political, and institutional changes relevant to gay and bisexual men in Canada.

Context: The shift from a time-based to a competency-based framework in medical education has created a need for frequent formative assessments. Many educational programmes use some form of written progress test to identify areas of strength and weakness and to promote continuous improvement in their learners. However, the role of performance-based assessments, such as objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), in progress testing remains unclear., Objective: The aims of this paper are to describe the use of an OSCE to assess learners at different stages of training, describe a structure for reporting scores, and provide evidence for the psychometric properties of different rating tools., Methods: A 10-station OSCE was administered to internal medicine residents in postgraduate years (PGYs) 1-4. Candidates were assessed using a checklist (CL), a global rating scale (GRS) and a training level rating scale (TLRS). Reliability was calculated for each measure using Cronbach's alpha. Differences in performance by year of training were explored using analysis of variance (anova). Correlations between scores obtained using the different rating instruments were calculated., Results: Sixty-nine residents participated in the OSCE. Inter-station reliability was greater (0.88) using the TLRS compared with the CL (0.84) and GRS (0.79). Using all three rating instruments, scores varied significantly by year of training (p < 0.001). Scores from the different rating instruments were highly correlated: CL and GRS, r = 0.93; CL and TLRS, r = 0.90, and GRS and TLRS, r = 0.94 (p < 0.001). Candidates received feedback on their performance relative to examiner expectations for their PGY level., Conclusions: Scores were found to have high reliability and demonstrated significant differences in performance by year of training. This provides evidence for the validity of using scores achieved on an OSCE as markers of progress in learners at different levels of training. Future studies will focus on assessing individual progress on the OSCE over time., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)