The equivalence of a high-stakes objective structured clinical exam adapted to suit a virtual delivery format.
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
View All
Overview
abstract
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid adaptation of clinical competence assessments, including the transition of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) from in-person to virtual formats. This study investigates the construct equivalence of a high-stakes OSCE, originally designed for in-person delivery, when adapted for a virtual format. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using OSCE scores from the Internationally Educated Nurse Competency Assessment Program (IENCAP®). Data were collected from 15 exam administrations between January 2018 and June 2022, encompassing 2021 examinees (1936 in-person, 85 virtual). The Many-Facet Rasch Measurement (MFRM) model was employed to analyze the invariance of examinee ability, case difficulty, and criteria difficulty across in-person and virtual formats. RESULTS: Results revealed overall examinee ability estimates remained invariant regardless of the OSCE format, while invariant violations were identified in only three of the 15 cases (N = 20%) adapted to suit the virtual format. The most significant adaptation, namely the use of a verbal physical examination to suit the virtual context achieved equivalence to its hands-on in-person counterpart given evidence of invariance across criteria estimates. Interestingly, criteria scores in invariant violated cases displayed a higher level of stability or consistency across the virtual OSCE formats versus their in-person counterpart highlighting a potential benefit of the virtual versus in-person format and potentially linked to the verbal physical examination. CONCLUSION: The study found that while examinee ability and case difficulty estimates exhibited some invariance between in-person and virtual OSCE formats, criteria involving physical assessments faced challenges in maintaining construct equivalence. These findings highlight the need for careful consideration in adapting high-stakes clinical assessments to virtual formats to ensure fairness and reliability.
