J Korean Acad Nurs.  2008 Feb;38(1):83-91. 10.4040/jkan.2008.38.1.83.

Validity and Reliability of a Clinical Performance Examination using Standardized Patients

• Choi JY
• Jang KS
• Choi SH
• Hong MS

• KMID: 1405642
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2008.38.1.83

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to test the validity of a modified clinical performance examination (CPX) for preclinical students in nursing. METHOD: 70 nursing students in their second semester of the junior year at C University participated in CPX. Scenarios and checklists were developed by our research team from September to October 2005. Six stations were organized. Evaluation included physical examination of a patient with lung cancer, education on usage of a metered dosage inhaler, and lobectomy postoperative care. Students were randomly assigned to a station. RESULT: There was a difference in the CPX scores according to stations. The agreement of scoring between trained faculty members and SPs was more than moderate (r=.647). The correlation between the CPX score and the average grade in the previous semester and between the CPX score and the average grade of a paper and pen test of the pulmonary system of adults was low (r=.276; r=.048). CONCLUSION: Traditional CPX is generally recommended, however, modified CPX is appropriate for preclinical students in the current Korean Nursing school setting if there are additional scoring systems to balance the testing level at each station.

Keyword

Patient simulation; Clinical competence; Evaluation study

MeSH Terms

Administration, Inhalation
Adult
Education, Nursing, Baccalaureate/*standards
Educational Measurement
Female
Humans
Lung Neoplasms/nursing
Male
Medical History Taking
Physical Examination
Postoperative Care
Reproducibility of Results
Task Performance and Analysis

Reference

1. Amona H, Sano T, Gotoh K, Kakuta S, Suganuma T, Kimura Y, et al. Strategies for training standardized patient instructors for a competency exam. J Dent Educ. 2004. 68:1104–1111.

2. Bickley L. Bate's guide to physical examination & history taking. 1999. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

3. Burch VC, Nash RC, Zabow T, Gibbs T, Aubin L, Jacobs B, et al. A structured assessment of newly qualified medical graduates. Med Educ. 2005. 39:723–731.

4. De Champlain AF, Margolis MJ, King A, Klass DJ. Standardized patients' accuracy in recording examinees' behaviors using checklists. Acad Med. 1997. 72(10 Suppl 1):S85–S87.

5. Jung KH, Choi EH, Bae JD, Na DY, Son IK, Ko CW, et al. Comparison of professional standardized and amateur standardized patients in OSCE. Korean J Med Educ. 2005. 17(1):97–105.

6. Kim BS, Lee YM, Ahn DS, Park JY. Evaluation of introduction to clinical medicine by objective structured clinical examination. Korean J Med Educ. 2001. 13:289–298.

7. Klein SP, Stecher BM. Analytic versus holistic scoring of science performance tasks. App Meas Educ. 1998. 11:121–137.

8. Lee YM, Hwang K, Baik SH, Hong MH, Choi YS, Kim SH. An experience of OSCE for introducing clinical performance assessment to Korean medical licensure examination. Korean J Med Educ. 2001. 13(1):47–57.

9. Lee MS, Kim S. Clinical performance evaluation in nursing. Korean J Nurs Query. 1999. 8(1):39–59.

10. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/ performance. Acad Med. 1990. 65(9 Suppl):S63–S67.

11. Mukohara K, Kitamura K, Wakabayashi H, Abe K, Sato J, Ban N. Evaluation of a communication skills seminar for students in a Japanese medical school: a non-randomized controlled study. BMC Med Educ. 2005. 4:24–29.

12. Nam MH. A validity study of performance assessment: a comparison between science hands-on assessment, experimental report assessment, computer simulation assessment. J Educ Eval. 1995. 8:115–143.

13. Oh H, Jun S, Kim E, Hur M, Song Y, Yi G, et al. Application of OSCE in clinical nursing education: development and testing validity of checklist. Annu Bull Bum-Suk Acad Scholarsh Found. 2006. 10:237–249.

14. Park H, Kim D, Kim DA, Choi H, Kim K. An OSCE assessment of fourth-year students as a comprehensive evaluation of medical skills before graduation. Korean J Med Educ. 1998. 6(1):23–35.

15. Park H, Lee J, Hwang H, Lee J, Choi Y, Kim H, et al. The agreement of checklist recordings between faculties and standardized patients in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Korean J Med Educ. 2003. 15:141–150.

16. Park H, Han J, Park M, Oh J. Comparison of results from objective structured clinical examinations for medical students performed before and after clinical clerkship. Korean J Med Educ. 2004. 16(1):63–71.

17. Reznick RK, Sydney S, Baumber J, Cohen R, Rothman A, Blackmore D, et al. Guideline for estimating the real cost of an objective structured clinical examination. Acad Med. 1993. 68:513–517.

18. Roberts J, Brown B. Testing the OSCE: a reliable measurement of clinical nurisng skills. Can J Nurs Res. 1990. 22(1):51–59.

19. Stillman PL, Regan MB, Swanson DB, Case S, McCahan J, Feinblatt J, et al. An assessment of clinical skills of fourth year students at four new england medical schools. Acad Med. 1990. 65:320–326.

20. Suh BY, Lee DJ, Kwun KB, Kang PS. Trial on objective structured clinical examination. Korean J Med Educ. 1998. 10:363–381.

21. Tamblyn RM, Klass DK, Schanbl GK, Kopelow ML. Factors associated with the acuracy of standardized patient presentation. Acad Med. 1990. 65(9 Suppl):S55–S56.

22. Vu NV, Barrows HS, March ML, Verhulst SJ, Colliver JA, Travis T. Six years of comprehensive, clinical, performance-based assessment using standardized patients at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. Acad Med. 1992. 67(1):42–50.

23. Yoo M. The effectiveness of standardized patient managed instruction for a fundamental nursing course. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ. 2001. 7(1):94–109.

24. Yoo MS, Yoo IY. Effects of OSCE method on performance of clinical skills of students in fundamentals of nursing course. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2003. 33:228–235.