OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise

Brian Hodges, Glenn Regehr, Nancy McNaughton, Richard Tiberius, Mark Hanson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

236 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of binary content checklists in measuring increasing levels of clinical competence. Method. Fourteen clinical clerks, 14 family practice residents, and 14 family physicians participated in two 15-minute standardized patient interviews. An examiner rated each participant's performance using a binary content checklist and a global process rating. The participants provided a diagnosis two minutes into and at the end of the interview. Results. On global scales, the experienced clinicians scored significantly better than did the residents and clerks, but on checklists, the experienced clinicians scored significantly worse than did the residents and clerks. Diagnostic accuracy increased for all groups between the two-minute and 15-minute marks without significant differences between the groups. Conclusion. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that binary checklists may not be valid measures of increasing clinical competence.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1129-1134
Number of pages6
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume74
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

OSCE
Checklist
expertise
resident
Clinical Competence
family physician
examiner
Interviews
interview
Family Practice
Family Physicians
diagnostic
Group
rating
performance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Education

Cite this

Hodges, B., Regehr, G., McNaughton, N., Tiberius, R., & Hanson, M. (1999). OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Academic Medicine, 74(10), 1129-1134.

OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. / Hodges, Brian; Regehr, Glenn; McNaughton, Nancy; Tiberius, Richard; Hanson, Mark.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 74, No. 10, 01.10.1999, p. 1129-1134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hodges, B, Regehr, G, McNaughton, N, Tiberius, R & Hanson, M 1999, 'OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise', Academic Medicine, vol. 74, no. 10, pp. 1129-1134.
Hodges B, Regehr G, McNaughton N, Tiberius R, Hanson M. OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Academic Medicine. 1999 Oct 1;74(10):1129-1134.
Hodges, Brian ; Regehr, Glenn ; McNaughton, Nancy ; Tiberius, Richard ; Hanson, Mark. / OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. In: Academic Medicine. 1999 ; Vol. 74, No. 10. pp. 1129-1134.
@article{2b0c2c03ad3f4138a2cf9e24c6b369f7,
title = "OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise",
abstract = "Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of binary content checklists in measuring increasing levels of clinical competence. Method. Fourteen clinical clerks, 14 family practice residents, and 14 family physicians participated in two 15-minute standardized patient interviews. An examiner rated each participant's performance using a binary content checklist and a global process rating. The participants provided a diagnosis two minutes into and at the end of the interview. Results. On global scales, the experienced clinicians scored significantly better than did the residents and clerks, but on checklists, the experienced clinicians scored significantly worse than did the residents and clerks. Diagnostic accuracy increased for all groups between the two-minute and 15-minute marks without significant differences between the groups. Conclusion. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that binary checklists may not be valid measures of increasing clinical competence.",
author = "Brian Hodges and Glenn Regehr and Nancy McNaughton and Richard Tiberius and Mark Hanson",
year = "1999",
month = "10",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "74",
pages = "1129--1134",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise

AU - Hodges, Brian

AU - Regehr, Glenn

AU - McNaughton, Nancy

AU - Tiberius, Richard

AU - Hanson, Mark

PY - 1999/10/1

Y1 - 1999/10/1

N2 - Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of binary content checklists in measuring increasing levels of clinical competence. Method. Fourteen clinical clerks, 14 family practice residents, and 14 family physicians participated in two 15-minute standardized patient interviews. An examiner rated each participant's performance using a binary content checklist and a global process rating. The participants provided a diagnosis two minutes into and at the end of the interview. Results. On global scales, the experienced clinicians scored significantly better than did the residents and clerks, but on checklists, the experienced clinicians scored significantly worse than did the residents and clerks. Diagnostic accuracy increased for all groups between the two-minute and 15-minute marks without significant differences between the groups. Conclusion. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that binary checklists may not be valid measures of increasing clinical competence.

AB - Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of binary content checklists in measuring increasing levels of clinical competence. Method. Fourteen clinical clerks, 14 family practice residents, and 14 family physicians participated in two 15-minute standardized patient interviews. An examiner rated each participant's performance using a binary content checklist and a global process rating. The participants provided a diagnosis two minutes into and at the end of the interview. Results. On global scales, the experienced clinicians scored significantly better than did the residents and clerks, but on checklists, the experienced clinicians scored significantly worse than did the residents and clerks. Diagnostic accuracy increased for all groups between the two-minute and 15-minute marks without significant differences between the groups. Conclusion. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that binary checklists may not be valid measures of increasing clinical competence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032694243&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032694243&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10536636

AN - SCOPUS:0032694243

VL - 74

SP - 1129

EP - 1134

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 10

ER -