Are multiple objective measures of student performance necessary?
BACKGROUND
This study examines the effect of using multiple modalities to evaluate medical students.


METHODS
Thirty-four students were evaluated by a complex model utilizing National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) shelf examination, Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), Computer Patient Simulation (CPS), faculty and peer evaluation. Results were compared with a traditional model based on NBME and faculty evaluation alone.


RESULTS
Reliability (coefficient alpha) of the complex and traditional models were 0.72 and 0.47, respectively. Item correlations suggested that NBME was most discriminating (r = 0.75), followed by OSCE (r = 0.52), peer evaluation (r = 0.43), CPS (r = 0.39), and faculty evaluation (r = 0.32). Rank order correlation (Spearman's rho) between scores calculated using each model was 0.87.


CONCLUSIONS
Although the complex model has improved reliability, both models rank students similarly. However, neither model fully captures and reflects the information provided by each of the specific evaluation methods.
Minion
David J
DJ
Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky Medical Center, 800 Rose St., Lexington, KY 40536-0084, USA. djmini@pop.uky.edu
Donnelly
Michael B
MB
Quick
Rhonda C
RC
Pulito
Andrew
A
Schwartz
Richard
R
D000328:Adult; D003198:Computer Simulation; D004504:Education, Medical, Undergraduate / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011361:Professional Competence; D013044:Specialty Boards; D013337:Students, Medical; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis