TY - JOUR
T1 - Are multiple objective measures of student performance necessary?
AU - Minion, David J.
AU - Donnelly, Michael B.
AU - Quick, Rhonda C.
AU - Pulito, Andrew
AU - Schwartz, Richard
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - Background: This study examines the effect of using multiple modalities to evaluate medical students. Methods: Thirty-four students were evaluated by a complex model utilizing National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) shelf examination, Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), Computer Patient Simulation (CPS), faculty and peer evaluation. Results were compared with a traditional model based on NBME and faculty evaluation alone. Results: Reliability (coefficient α) of the complex and traditional models were 0.72 and 0.47, respectively. Item correlations suggested that NBME was most discriminating (r = 0.75), followed by OSCE (r = 0.52), peer evaluation (r = 0.43), CPS (r = 0.39), and faculty evaluation (r = 0.32). Rank order correlation (Spearman's ρ) between scores calculated using each model was 0.87. Conclusions: Although the complex model has improved reliability, both models rank students similarly. However, neither model fully captures and reflects the information provided by each of the specific evaluation methods.
AB - Background: This study examines the effect of using multiple modalities to evaluate medical students. Methods: Thirty-four students were evaluated by a complex model utilizing National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) shelf examination, Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), Computer Patient Simulation (CPS), faculty and peer evaluation. Results were compared with a traditional model based on NBME and faculty evaluation alone. Results: Reliability (coefficient α) of the complex and traditional models were 0.72 and 0.47, respectively. Item correlations suggested that NBME was most discriminating (r = 0.75), followed by OSCE (r = 0.52), peer evaluation (r = 0.43), CPS (r = 0.39), and faculty evaluation (r = 0.32). Rank order correlation (Spearman's ρ) between scores calculated using each model was 0.87. Conclusions: Although the complex model has improved reliability, both models rank students similarly. However, neither model fully captures and reflects the information provided by each of the specific evaluation methods.
KW - Computer simulation
KW - Evaluation
KW - Grading
KW - National Board of Medical Examiners
KW - Objective Structured Clinical Examination
KW - Undergraduate medical education
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036289677&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036289677&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9610(02)00868-1
DO - 10.1016/S0002-9610(02)00868-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 12095597
AN - SCOPUS:0036289677
SN - 0002-9610
VL - 183
SP - 663
EP - 665
JO - American Journal of Surgery
JF - American Journal of Surgery
IS - 6
ER -