TY - JOUR
T1 - Validity Evidence and Scoring Guidelines for Standardized Patient Encounters and Patient Notes from a Multisite Study of Clinical Performance Examinations in Seven Medical Schools
AU - Park, Yoon Soo
AU - Hyderi, Abbas
AU - Heine, Nancy
AU - May, Win
AU - Nevins, Andrew
AU - Lee, Ming
AU - Bordage, Georges
AU - Yudkowsky, Rachel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 by the Association of American.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Purpose To examine validity evidence of local graduation competency examination scores from seven medical schools using shared cases and to provide rater training protocols and guidelines for scoring patient notes (PNs). Method Between May and August 2016, clinical cases were developed, shared, and administered across seven medical schools (990 students participated). Raters were calibrated using training protocols, and guidelines were developed collaboratively across sites to standardize scoring. Data included scores from standardized patient encounters for history taking, physical examination, and PNs. Descriptive statistics were used to examine scores from the different assessment components. Generalizability studies (G-studies) using variance components were conducted to estimate reliability for composite scores. Results Validity evidence was collected for response process (rater perception), internal structure (variance components, reliability), relations to other variables (interassessment correlations), and consequences (composite score). Student performance varied by case and task. In the PNs, justification of differential diagnosis was the most discriminating task. G-studies showed that schools accounted for less than 1% of total variance; however, for the PNs, there were differences in scores for varying cases and tasks across schools, indicating a school effect. Composite score reliability was maximized when the PN was weighted between 30% and 40%. Raters preferred using case-specific scoring guidelines with clear pointscoring systems. Conclusions This multisite study presents validity evidence for PN scores based on scoring rubric and case-specific scoring guidelines that offer rigor and feedback for learners. Variability in PN scores across participating sites may signal different approaches to teaching clinical reasoning among medical schools.
AB - Purpose To examine validity evidence of local graduation competency examination scores from seven medical schools using shared cases and to provide rater training protocols and guidelines for scoring patient notes (PNs). Method Between May and August 2016, clinical cases were developed, shared, and administered across seven medical schools (990 students participated). Raters were calibrated using training protocols, and guidelines were developed collaboratively across sites to standardize scoring. Data included scores from standardized patient encounters for history taking, physical examination, and PNs. Descriptive statistics were used to examine scores from the different assessment components. Generalizability studies (G-studies) using variance components were conducted to estimate reliability for composite scores. Results Validity evidence was collected for response process (rater perception), internal structure (variance components, reliability), relations to other variables (interassessment correlations), and consequences (composite score). Student performance varied by case and task. In the PNs, justification of differential diagnosis was the most discriminating task. G-studies showed that schools accounted for less than 1% of total variance; however, for the PNs, there were differences in scores for varying cases and tasks across schools, indicating a school effect. Composite score reliability was maximized when the PN was weighted between 30% and 40%. Raters preferred using case-specific scoring guidelines with clear pointscoring systems. Conclusions This multisite study presents validity evidence for PN scores based on scoring rubric and case-specific scoring guidelines that offer rigor and feedback for learners. Variability in PN scores across participating sites may signal different approaches to teaching clinical reasoning among medical schools.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85032452633
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85032452633#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001918
DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001918
M3 - Article
C2 - 29065018
SN - 1040-2446
VL - 92
SP - S12-S20
JO - Academic Medicine
JF - Academic Medicine
IS - null
ER -