Study of the Reliability and Validity of Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in the Assessment of Clinical Skills of Audiology Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Audiology students should possess clinical competence and skills. To achieve this, their clinical skills must be properly assessed. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a standard and fair examination of clinical competence. The goal of this study is to devise a checklist of OSCE examination criteria and study their validity and reliability for assessing the clinical competence of Audiology students. METHODS: Among the various procedures in which audiology students should possess demonstrated competence, 10 specific skills were selected and checklists were prepared. Faculty members of university's Audiology Department were consulted to determine the validity of the checklists. Subsequently, the examination was administered to all 14 fourth-year audiology students in their final semester of study at Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences. The examination consisted of three question stations and seven procedure stations. Each station was managed by two examiners who independently used a checklist to score each student's performance in a given procedure. To determine reliability, the Spearman test was used. RESULTS: The correlation between each examiner's scores of students at question stations was 0.908. The correlation between each examiner's scores at procedure stations was 0.857 (p=0). The site of lesion test had the highest correlation (0.948) and immittance audiometry had the lowest correlation (0.585). CONCLUSION: The prepared checklists had good validity and reliability and can be used to evaluate the clinical competence of audiology students in their final semester of study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".