Reliability, validity, and generalizability of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) for assessment of entry-to-practice in pharmacy
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
This paper describes the evaluation of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and the assessment outcomes for reliability, validity and generalizability for the entry-to-practice context in pharmacy in Canada. A total of 190 participants were involved: 153 entry-to-practice candidates and 37 pharmacists who were already licensed. Two balanced forms of an OSCE were developed, consisting of 26 stations (18 interactive and 8 non-interactive stations). Descriptive analysis for all data was undertaken, and detailed analysis of data from Form I of the OSCE (including generalizability and dependability studies) are reported. Based on findings of this study, conclusions were made regarding OSCEs for entry-to-practice assessment in pharmacy. A key finding of this study was that a 15-station OSCE, using one pharmacist-assessor per station, yielded consistent and dependable scores when holistic scoring was used to assess both qualifying candidates and practising pharmacists.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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