Reliability analysis of the objective structured clinical examination using generalizability theory

References

• Van der Vleuten CPM, Swanson DB. Assessment of clinical skills with standardized patients: state of the art. Teach Learn Med. 1990; 2: 58–76.
   Google Scholar
• Harden RM, Stevenson WM, Downie W, Wilson GM. Assessment of clinical competence using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Br Med J. 1975; 1: 447–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubbard JP. Measuring medical education. 1971; Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
   Google Scholar
• Elstein AS , Shulman LS , Sprafka SA . Medical problem solving. 1978; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 292–4.
   Google Scholar
• Downing S. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ. 2004; 38: 1006–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrusa ER. Norman GR, van der Vleuten CPM, Newble DI. Clinical performance assessments. International handbook for research in medical education. 2002; Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 673–709.
   Google Scholar
• Newble DI, Swanson DB. Psychometric characteristics of the objective structured clinical examination. Med Educ. 1988; 22: 325–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downing SM. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 2003; 37: 830–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan RL. Generalizability theory. 2010; New York: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Vleuten C. Validity of final examinations in undergraduate medical training. Br Med J. 2000; 321: 1217–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cronbach L, Gleser G, Nanda H, Rajaratnam N. The dependability of behavioral measurements: theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. 1972; New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner DL, Norman G. Streiner DL, Norman G. Reliability. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 2003; Oxford: Oxford University Press. 126–52.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach L, Shavelson RJ. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Meas. 2004; 64: 391–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloch R, Norman G. Generalizability theory for the perplexed: a practical introduction and guide: AMEE Guide No. 68. Med Teach. 2012; 34: 960–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shavelson J, Webb N. MMSS generalizability theory. A primer. 1991; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Baig L, Violato C. Temporal stability of objective structured clinical exams: a longitudinal study employing item response theory. BMC Med Educ. 2012; 12: 121. [cited 29 July 2016] Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/12/121.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson DM. Applying generalizability theory to high-stakes objective structured clinical examinations in a naturalistic environment. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006; 29: 463–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallevand A, Violato C. A predictive and construct validity study of a high-stakes objective clinical examination for assessing the clinical competence of international medical graduates. Teach Learn Med. 2012; 24: 168–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auewarakul C, Downing SM, Jaturatamrong U, Praditsuwan R. Sources of validity evidence for an internal medicine student evaluation system: an evaluative study of assessment method. Med Educ. 2005; 39: 276–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatala R, Marr S, Cuncic C, Bacchus CM. Modification of an OSCE format to enhance patient continuity in a high-stakes assessment of clinical performance. BMC Med Educ. 2011; 11: 23. [cited 29 July 2016] Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/11/23.
   Google Scholar
• Boulet J, McKinley D, Whelan G, Hambleton R. Quality assurance methods for performance-based assessments. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2003; 8: 47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donnon T, Paolucci E. A generalizability study of the medical judgment vignettes interview to assess students’ noncognitive attributes for medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2008; 8: 58. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-8-58.
   Google Scholar
• Hull AL, Hodder S, Berger B, Ginsberg D, Lindheim N, Quan J, etal. Validity of three clinical performance assessments of internal medicine clerks. Acad Med. 1995; 70: 517–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson TJ, Newble DI, Wilson PD, Cater JM, Helms RM. Development of a three-centre simultaneous objective structured clinical examination. Med Educ. 2000; 34: 798–807.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sánchez M, Durante I, Morales S, Lozano R, Martínez A, Graue E. Plan de Estudios 2010 de la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Gac Med Mex. 2011; 147: 152–8.
   Google Scholar
• Trejo J, Martínez A, Méndez I, Morales S, Ruíz L, Sánchez M. Evaluación de la Competencia Clínica con el Examen Clínico Objetivo Estructurado (ECOE) en el Internado Médico de la UNAM. Gac Med Mex. 2014; 150: 8–17.
   Google Scholar
• Brannick MT. A systematic review of the reliability of objective structured clinical examination scores. Med Educ. 2011; 45: 1181–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan X, Chen M. Published studies of inter-rater reliability often overestimate reliability: computing the correct coefficient. Educ Psychol Meas. 2000; 60: 532–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349: aac4716. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
   Google Scholar
• Makel MC. Facts are more important than novelty. Replication in the education sciences. Educ Res. 2014; 43: 304–16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14545513.
   Google Scholar