Validity evidence for two objective structured clinical examination stations to evaluate core skills of the shoulder and knee assessment. Issue 1 (December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Battistone, Michael; Barker, Andrea; Beck, J.; Tashjian, Robert; Cannon, Grant
• Is Part Of: BMC medical education. Volume 17:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 8
• Publication Date: 2017-12
• Subjects: Medical education -- Periodicals; 610.715
• DOI: 10.1186/s12909-016-0850-7
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1472-6920

Abstract

Abstract Background We developed two objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) to educate and evaluate trainees in the evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. Our objective was to examine the evidence for validity of these OSCEs. Methods A multidisciplinary team of content experts developed checklists of exam maneuvers and criteria to guide rater observations. Content was proposed by faculty, supplemented by literature review, and finalized using a Delphi process. One faculty simulated the patient, another rated examinee performance. Two faculty independently rated a portion of cases. Percent agreement was calculated and Cohen's kappa corrected for chance agreement on binary outcomes. Examinees' self-assessment was explored by written surveys. Responses were stratified into 3 categories and compared with similarly stratified OSCE scores using Pearson's coefficient. Results A multi-disciplinary cohort of 69 examinees participated. Examinees correctly identified rotator cuff and meniscal disease 88% and 89% of the time, respectively. Inter-rater agreement was moderate for the knee (87%; k = 0.61) and near perfect for the shoulder (97%; k = 0.88). No correlation between stratified self-assessment and OSCE scores were found for either shoulder (0.02) or knee (−0.07). Conclusions Validity evidence supports the continuing use of these OSCEs in educational programs addressing the evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. Evidence for validity includes the systematic development of content, rigorous control of the response process, and demonstration of acceptable interrater agreement. Lack of correlation with self-assessment suggests that these OSCEs measure a construct different from learners' self-confidence.