A many‐facet Rasch measurement model approach to investigating objective structured clinical examination item parameter drift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are widely used for assessing clinical competence, especially in high-stakes environments such as medical licensure. However, the reuse of OSCE cases across multiple administrations raises concerns about parameter stability, known as item parameter drift (IPD). AIMS & OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate IPD in reused OSCE cases while accounting for examiner scoring effects using a Many-facet Rasch Measurement (MFRM) model. METHOD: Data from 12 OSCE cases, reused over seven administrations of the Internationally Educated Nurse Competency Assessment Program (IENCAP), were analyzed using the MFRM model. Each case was treated as an item, and examiner scoring effects were accounted for in the analysis. RESULTS: The results indicated that despite accounting for examiner effects, all cases exhibited some level of IPD, with an average absolute IPD of 0.21 logits. Three cases showed positive directional trends. IPD significantly affected score decisions in 1.19% of estimates, at an invariance violation of 0.58 logits. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that while OSCE cases demonstrate sufficient stability for reuse, continuous monitoring is essential to ensure the accuracy of score interpretations and decisions. The study provides an objective threshold for detecting concerning levels of IPD and underscores the importance of addressing examiner scoring effects in OSCE assessments. The MFRM model offers a robust framework for tracking and mitigating IPD, contributing to the validity and reliability of OSCEs in evaluating clinical competence.
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 | 0.057 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".