MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039180051 · doi:10.1111/medu.12326

The objective structured clinical examination: can physician‐examiners participate from a distance?

2014· article· en· W2039180051 on OpenAlexaff
James Chan, Susan Humphrey‐Murto, Debra Pugh, Charles A. Su, Timothy J. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjective structured clinical examinationChecklistMedical educationPhysical examinationOral examinationEducational measurementPsychologyMedicineScale (ratio)Family medicineCurriculumSurgeryGeographyCartographyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Currently, a 'pedagogical gap' exists in distributed medical education in that distance educators teach medical students but typically do not have the opportunity to assess them in large-scale examinations such as the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). We developed a remote examiner OSCE (reOSCE) that was integrated into a traditional OSCE to establish whether remote examination technology may be used to bridge this gap. The purpose of this study was to explore whether remote physician-examiners can replace on-site physician-examiners in an OSCE, and to determine the feasibility of this new examination method. METHODS: Forty Year 3 medical students were randomised into six reOSCE stations that were incorporated into two tracks of a 10-station traditional OSCE. For the reOSCE stations, student performance was assessed by both a local examiner (LE) in the room and a remote examiner (RE) who viewed the OSCE encounters from a distance. The primary endpoint was the correlation of scores between LEs and REs across all reOSCE stations. The secondary endpoint was a post-OSCE survey of both REs and students. RESULTS: Statistically significant correlations were found between LE and RE checklist scores for history taking (r = 0.64-r = 0.80), physical examination (r = 0.41-r = 0.54), and management stations (r = 0.78). Correlations between LE and RE global ratings were more varied (r = 0.21-r = 0.77). Correlations on three of the six stations reached significance. Qualitative analysis of feedback from REs and students showed high acceptance of the reOSCE despite technological issues. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrated that OSCE ratings by LEs and REs were reasonably comparable when using checklists. Remote examination may be a feasible and acceptable way of assessing students' clinical skills, but further validity evidence will be required before it can be recommended for use in high-stakes examinations.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207