Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Colliver, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Barrows, H. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Colliver, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Barrows, H. S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Assessment of Uniqueness of Information Provided by Postencounter Written Scores on Standardized-Patient Examinations

Jerry A. Colliver

Terry A. Travis

Randall S. Robbs

Nu V. Vu

Michelle L. Marcy

Howard S. Barrows

Southern Illinois University, School of Medicine

The complete clinical encounter station uses two testing methods in the assessment of clinical competence: checklists completed by standardized patients (SPs) who record actions students performed on history and physical examination and written responses by students to a series of written questions designed to elicit findings they see as pertinent to the problem, their working hypotheses, their plans for laboratory findings, and their diagnoses and management plans. Given that the critical part of any SP station is the standardizedpatient encounter and that the postencounter session needed for the student to answer the written questions increases the time required to administer an already lengthy examination, questions have been raised about the need for written questions in addition to SP checklists in the clinical encounter station. Thus it is important to determine if the written scores are providing additional, nonredundant information over and above that provided by the checklist scores. The results of this study showed only moderate overlap between the checklist and written scores. The mean checklist-written correlation across 83 SP cases was .13, and the mean correlation between the average checklist and written scores across six classes of medical students was .32. The mean of the correlations across the six classes, disattenuated for measurement error, was only .57. The results provide strong evidence that the written scores provide unique information, in addition to that provided by checklist scores.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 15, No. 4, 465-474 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879201500408


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?