MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280627206 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v12n9p24

Evaluation of a low cost OSCE in family nurse practitioner students: An emphasis on self-assessment in competency-based education

2022· article· en· W4280627206 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationObjective structured clinical examinationNursingStrengths and weaknessesMedicinePsychologyNurse educationSignificant difference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The American Association of Colleges of Nursing has identified competency-based education (CBE) as a priority in nursing education. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) has been used across health professions as a tool to incorporate competency-based education. However, the OSCE has been correlated with intensive faculty resources and high costs. The objective of this study was to discuss the evaluation of a low cost OSCE and its ability to incorporate the role of self-assessment in competency-based education within a nurse practitioner program.Methods: Faculty at a public university developed and evaluated an OSCE, exploring its implementation as a component of CBE while minimizing costs using a quasi-experimental design. Nine nurse practitioner students in their third year of a BSN-DNP program completed a pre- and post- assessment of their perceived ability in three OSCEs. Undergraduate nursing students were recruited for the standardized patient role. The OSCEs were recorded for evaluation by faculty and for self-evaluation by the students.Results: There was no significant difference noted in student self-evaluations pre- and post-assessment. There was a statistical difference in the faculty ratings of the student in the otitis media OSCE, with the student rating their performance higher than faculty. There was no statistical difference noted in either the women’s health or hypertension assessments.Conclusions: Recordings of the OSCEs allowed students to identify strengths and weaknesses, cultivating the practice of self-assessment. Integration of minimal cost OSCEs provides opportunities for programs with varying budgets to incorporate it as a component of CBE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.450 · 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