Scholarlink

Background <p>Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) are a widely used tool for assessing ultrasound competence, yet the optimal format for its rating scales remains debated. Extended, task-specific rating scales may offer detailed guidance, while more generic scales offer broader applicability and ease of use. This study compares whether and how ratings differed when using an extended versus a generic rating scale for assessing performance in basic abdominal ultrasound skills.</p> Methods <p>In this single-centre cohort study, 80 medical students participated in an OSCE for abdominal ultrasound rated by both an extended and generic rating scale in parallel. Five domains were evaluated: image settings, transducer handling, examination technique, image explanation and overall performance. Each OSCE station was rated by two assessors simultaneously, one using each scale.</p> Results <p>The generic rating scale demonstrated significantly higher internal consistency (mean Cronbach’s α generic 0.803 vs. extended 0.699; <i>p</i> = 0.011) and a higher generalisability (Phi generic 0.529 vs. extended 0.466). Absolute ratings on the generic rating scale were significantly lower (performance P generic 75.38% vs. extended 77.99%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), though in-between stations difficulty was only significantly different for two stations.</p> Conclusion <p>In total, the generic rating scale showed a more stringent rating with a higher internal consistency and a higher variance due to participants’ performance.</p> <p>Therefore, a well-designed generic rating scale can reliably and efficiently assess basic abdominal ultrasound performance, possibly offering greater generalisability and simpler implementation than extended task specific rating scales.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Abdominal ultrasound performance assessment: a comparison of generic and extended OSCE rating scales

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月14日

查看全文
  • Simon Schneider,
  • Daniel Stricker,
  • Christoph Berendonk,
  • Joanna Baron-Stefaniak,
  • Robin Walter

摘要

Background

Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) are a widely used tool for assessing ultrasound competence, yet the optimal format for its rating scales remains debated. Extended, task-specific rating scales may offer detailed guidance, while more generic scales offer broader applicability and ease of use. This study compares whether and how ratings differed when using an extended versus a generic rating scale for assessing performance in basic abdominal ultrasound skills.

Methods

In this single-centre cohort study, 80 medical students participated in an OSCE for abdominal ultrasound rated by both an extended and generic rating scale in parallel. Five domains were evaluated: image settings, transducer handling, examination technique, image explanation and overall performance. Each OSCE station was rated by two assessors simultaneously, one using each scale.

Results

The generic rating scale demonstrated significantly higher internal consistency (mean Cronbach’s α generic 0.803 vs. extended 0.699; p = 0.011) and a higher generalisability (Phi generic 0.529 vs. extended 0.466). Absolute ratings on the generic rating scale were significantly lower (performance P generic 75.38% vs. extended 77.99%, p < 0.001), though in-between stations difficulty was only significantly different for two stations.

Conclusion

In total, the generic rating scale showed a more stringent rating with a higher internal consistency and a higher variance due to participants’ performance.

Therefore, a well-designed generic rating scale can reliably and efficiently assess basic abdominal ultrasound performance, possibly offering greater generalisability and simpler implementation than extended task specific rating scales.