↓ Skip to main content

Examiner effect on the objective structured clinical exam – a study at five medical schools

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Examiner effect on the objective structured clinical exam – a study at five medical schools
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0908-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iris Schleicher, Karsten Leitner, Jana Juenger, Andreas Moeltner, Miriam Ruesseler, Bernd Bender, Jasmina Sterz, Karl-Friedrich Schuettler, Sarah Koenig, Joachim Gerhard Kreuder

Abstract

The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is increasingly used at medical schools to assess practical competencies. To compare the outcomes of students at different medical schools, we introduced standardized OSCE stations with identical checklists. We investigated examiner bias at standardized OSCE stations for knee- and shoulder-joint examinations, which were implemented into the surgical OSCE at five different medical schools. The checklists for the assessment consisted of part A for knowledge and performance of the skill and part B for communication and interaction with the patient. At each medical faculty, one reference examiner also scored independently to the local examiner. The scores from both examiners were compared and analysed for inter-rater reliability and correlation with the level of clinical experience. Possible gender bias was also evaluated. In part A of the checklist, local examiners graded students higher compared to the reference examiner; in part B of the checklist, there was no trend to the findings. The inter-rater reliability was weak, and the scoring correlated only weakly with the examiner's level of experience. Female examiners rated generally higher, but male examiners scored significantly higher if the examinee was female. These findings of examiner effects, even in standardized situations, may influence outcome even when students perform equally well. Examiners need to be made aware of these biases prior to examining.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 16%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Researcher 13 9%
Other 12 8%
Other 34 24%
Unknown 32 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 37 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2019.
All research outputs
#7,467,721
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,336
of 3,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,259
of 309,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#21
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.