OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

240 Scopus citations

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 (US)
Pages (from-to)1129-1134
Number of pages6
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume74
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1999

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • 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.