Evaluating an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) Adapted for Social Work
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
Objectives: To evaluate an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) adapted for social work in a lab course and examine the degree to which it predicts competence in the practicum. Method: 125 Masters students participated in a one-scenario OSCE and wrote responses to standardized reflection questions. OSCE performance and reflections were rated on previously standardized scales, competence in field was evaluated using the online practice-based evaluation. Results: A wide range of scores on OSCE scales indicate that differences in student competencies were captured. Correlational analyses revealed an association between OSCE scales and field final evaluations. Nevertheless, a number of students who performed poorly on the OSCE did well in the practicum. Conclusions: The OSCE method of evaluation warrants cautious optimism and requires further replication and adaptation for social work educational outcomes assessment.
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 | 0.030 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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