The challenge of creating new OSCE measures to capture the characteristics of expertise
Version of Record online: 20 AUG 2002
Volume 36, Issue 8, pages 742–748, August 2002
How to Cite
Hodges, B., McNaughton, N., Regehr, G., Tiberius, R. and Hanson, M. (2002), The challenge of creating new OSCE measures to capture the characteristics of expertise. Medical Education, 36: 742–748. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2002.01203.x
- Issue online: 20 AUG 2002
- Version of Record online: 20 AUG 2002
- Received 27 April 2001; editorial comments to authors 28 August 2001; accepted for publication 1 November 2001
- *Clinical competence;
- education, medical/*standards;
- educational measurement/*standards;
Purpose Although expert clinicians approach interviewing in a different manner than novices, OSCE measures have not traditionally been designed to take into account levels of expertise. Creating better OSCE measures requires an understanding of how the interviewing style of experts differs objectively from novices.
Methods Fourteen clinical clerks, 14 family practice residents and 14 family physicians were videotaped during 2 15-minute standardized patient interviews. Videotapes were reviewed and every utterance coded by type including questions, empathic comments, giving information, summary statements and articulated transitions. Utterances were plotted over time and examined for characteristic patterns related to level of expertise.
Results The mean number of utterances exceeded one every 10 s for all groups. The largest proportion was questions, ranging from 76% of utterances for clerks to 67% for experts. One third of total utterances consisted of a group of ‘low frequency’ types, including empathic comments, information giving and summary statements. The topic was changed often by all groups. While utterance type over time appeared to show characteristic patterns reflective of expertise, the differences were not robust. Only the pattern of use of summary statements was statistically different between groups (P < 0·05).
Conclusions Measures that are sensitive to the nature of expertise, including the sequence and organisation of questions, should be used to supplement OSCE checklists that simply count questions. Specifically, information giving, empathic comments and summary statements that occupy a third of expert interviews should be credited. However, while there appear to be patterns of utterances that characterise levels of expertise, in this study these patterns were subtle and not amenable to counting and classification.