Authors Naji J. Touma Kingston General Hospital Charles A. Paco Queen's University Iain MacIntyre Queen's University DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8571 Keywords: OSCEs, Medical Education, Assessments, Urology Exams, Urology Education Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is an attractive tool of competency assessment in a high-stakes summative exam. An advantage of the OSCE is the ability to assess more realistic context, content, and procedures. Each year, the Queen’s Urology Exam Skills Training (QUEST) is attended by graduating Canadian urology residents to simulate their upcoming board exams. The exam consists of a written component and an OSCE. The aim of this study was to determine the inter-observer consistency of scoring between two examiners of an OSCE for a given candidate.

METHODS: Thirty-nine participants in 2020 and 37 participants in 2021 completed four stations of OSCEs virtually over the Zoom platform. Each candidate was examined and scored independently by two different faculty urologists in a blinded fashion at each station. The OSCE scoring consisted of a checklist rating scale for each question. An intra-class correlation (ICC) analysis was conducted to determine the inter-rater reliability of the two examiners for each of the four OSCE stations in both the 2020 and 2021 OSCEs.

RESULTS: For the 2020 data, the prostate cancer station scores were most strongly correlated (ICC 0.746, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.556–0.862, p<0.001). This was followed by the general urology station (ICC 0.688, 95% CI 0.464–0.829, p<0.001), the urinary incontinence station (ICC 0.638, 95% CI 0.403–0.794, p<0.001), and finally the nephrolithiasis station (ICC 0.472, 95% CI 0.183–0.686, p<0.001). For the 2021 data, the renal cancer station had the highest ICC at 0.866 (95% CI 0.754–0.930, p<0.001). This was followed by the nephrolithiasis station (ICC 0.817, 95% CI 0.673–0.901, p<0.001), the pediatric station (ICC 0.809, 95% CI 0.660–0.897, p<0.001), and finally the andrology station (ICC 0.804, 95% CI 0.649–0.895, p<0.001). A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for all stations, and all show a positive correlation with global exam scores. It is noteworthy that some stations were more predictive of overall performance, but this did not necessarily mean better ICC scores for these stations.

CONCLUSIONS: Given a specific clinical scenario in an OSCE exam, inter-rater reliability of scoring can be compromised on occasion. Care should be taken when high-stakes decisions about promotion are made based on OSCEs with limited standardization.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

How to Cite

Touma, N. J., Paco, C. A. ., & MacIntyre, I. . (2023). Inter-observer variance of examiner scoring in urology Objective Structured Clinical Examinations . Canadian Urological Association Journal, 18(4), 116–9. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8571

Issue Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

Post the Article on any Web site Translate or authorize a translation of the Article Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party; That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged; That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.