Progress testing: is there a role for the OSCE?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it