Table 3 Critical Review Findings

Baker, Cope et al. [25]

Osteopathic Medicine

• Point biseral correlations

Significant (p < 0.01) correlation between pass/failure of COMLEX-USA Level 2-PE and OSCE:

64 %

Fair

• Total OSCE score r = 0.33

• Physical examination subscore r = 0.40

Berg et al. [23]

Medicine

• Pearson’s correlation

Significant (p < 0.05) correlations between the same subsets across tests.

54 %

Fair

• Data gathering r = 0.18

• Documentation r = 0.35

• Communication/personal r = 0.32

Campos-Outcalt et al. [30]

Medicine

• Pearson’s correlation

Significant (p < 0.01) correlations between residency director ratings and OSCE:

57 %

Fair

• Total OSCE score r = 0.305

Carr et al. [20]

Medicine

• Pearson’s correlation

• Linear regression with Bonferroni adjustment

Significant correlations between the overall JDAT Score and the:

64 %

Fair

Year 6 Written r = 0.178, p = 0.014

Year 4 OSCE r = 0.137, p = 0.027

Year 5 OSCE r = 0.161, p = 0.022

Linear regression model found individual summative assessments did not demonstrate a significant influence on overall JDAT score (p-values of 0.141–0.859).

Cope, Baker et al. [26]

Osteopathic medicine

• Correlations

Significant (p < 0.05*; p < 0.01**) correlations between subscores of the Clinical Evaluation Grade Form and OSCE measures:

54 % Fair

OSCE Total and Subscores 1**, 2*, 3–5** r = 0.25–0.43

History taking and Subscores 1,3–5** r = 0.31–0.40

Physical Examination and Subscores 1,3,5* r = 0.24–0.29

SOAP Note Form and Subscores 1**, 2*, 3**, 5* r = 0.28–0.34

Dong et al. [24]

Medicine

• Pearson’s correlation

Significant correlations between USMLE Step 2 CS components and OSCEs.

57 %

Fair

Year 2 OSCE and Integrated Clinical Encounter Component r = 0.25

Year 2 OSCE and Communication and Interpersonal Skills Component r = 0.26

Year 3 OSCE and Integrated Clinical Encounter Component r = 0.16

Year 3 OSCE and Communication and Interpersonal Skills Component r = 0.27

Ferguson et al. [19]

Medicine

• Pearson’s correlation

Significant correlations between clinical evaluation form and:

29 %

Poor

MCQ Written examination r = 0.27, p = 0.0009

Case based learning reports

–Group participation r = 0.28, p = 0.0004

- Written reports r = 0.21, p = 0.009

Gadbury-Amyot et al. [18]

Dental Hygiene

• Pearson’s correlation

• Linear regression

Significant (p < 0.05) correlation between Portfolio total score and CRDTS score

54 %

Fair

r = 0.27

A prediction model using two factors predicted 13.9 % of the variance in Central Region Dental Service Testing scores

Graham et al. [34]

Dentistry

• Polynomial regression

Significant (p < 0.001) correlation between OSCE and clinical productivity value

61 %

Fair

2010 Cohort r = 0.614

2011 Cohort r = 0.54

Han et al. [27]

Medicine

• Pearson’s correlation

Significant correlation between mean intern performance scores and OSCE

57 %

Fair

r = 0.278, p < 0.028

Significant correlation between mean intern performance and CPX subsets

Patient-physician interaction r = 0.503, p < 0.001

Clinical skills r = 0.278, p < 0.027

Hawker et al. [32]

Dietetics

• Linear regression

Identified a β coefficient of 0.66 (p <0.0001) between individual OSCE scores and placement scores

61 %

Fair

Ho et al. [17]

Speech Pathology

• Spearman’s rho

Significant correlations (p < 0.01**; p < 0.05*) between:

54 %

Fair

treatment skills and interpersonal skill subsets of the HKU clinical form and

Reflective journal r = 0.331**, 0.272*

Tutorial process r = 0.242*, 0.280*

COMPASS® generic competencies and tutorial process r = 0.315–0.407**

COMPASS® overall occupational competency scores and

Reflective journal r = 0.271*

Tutorial process r = 0.367**

Kahn et al. [29]

Medicine

• Pearson’s correlations

• Spearman’s rho

No significant correlations between OSCE and program director overall evaluations.

50 %

Poor

r = 0.22, p = 0.15

LaRochelle et al. [22]

Medicine

• Multiple linear regression

The OSCE was a significant predictor of PGY1-PD Medical Expertise scores in a model containing multiple independent variables (β = 0.134, p = 0.013). The written examination were not significant predictors of PGY1-PD scores, although approached statistical significance (β = 0.266, p = 0.07).

54 %

Fair

The OSCE was the only significant predictor of PGYI-PD Professionalism scores in a model containing multiple independent variables (β = 0.124, p < 0.026)

McLaughlin et al. [33]

Pharmacy

• Pearson’s correlations

Significant (p < 0.05*; p < 0.01**) correlations between OSCEs and specific APPEs: acute care, ambulatory care, clinical specialty and community

57 %

Fair

Year 2 Fall OSCE and all four APPEs r = 0.13*–0.14*

Year 2 Spring OSCE and acute care APPE r = 0.12*

Year 3 Fall OSCE and:

acute care APPE r = 0.12*

ambulatory care APPE r = 0.25**

clinical specialty APPE r = 0.13*

Probert et al. [28]

Medicine

• Logistic regression

No statistically significant results.

57 %

Fair

OR 1.64, 95 % CI 0.50–5.41

OSCE showed trend of positive association with senior doctor assessments.

Wessel et al. [31]

Physiotherapy

• Spearman’s rank correlations

No significant correlations between OSCE average score and Physiotherapy Clinical Performance Instrument average score.

61 %

Fair

Wilkinson & Frampton [21]

Medicine

• Pearson’s correlation

Significant (p < 0.01*, p < 0.001**) correlations between global rating instrument:

68 %

Fair

Total score and: OSCE r = 0.59**

Written 2 r = 0.54**

Clinical skills subset and: OSCE r = 0.63**

Written 2 r = 0.57**

Humanistic subset and: OSCE r = 0.44**

Written 2 r = 0.41*