查看文章

Purpose  There are several reasons for using global ratings in addition to checklists for scoring objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) stations. However, there has been little evidence collected regarding the validity of these scales. This study assessed the construct validity of an analytic global rating with 4 component subscales: empathy, coherence, verbal and non‐verbal expression.

Methods  A total of 19 Year 3 and 38 Year 4 clinical clerks were scored on content checklists and these global ratings during a 10‐station OSCE. T‐tests were used to assess differences between groups for overall checklist and global scores, and for each of the 4 subscales.

Results  The mean global rating was significantly higher for senior clerks (75·5% versus 71·3%, t₅₅ = 2·12, P < 0·05) and there were significant differences by level of training for the coherence (t₅₅ = 3·33, P < 0·01) and verbal communication …