5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Improving the validity of script concordance testing by optimising and balancing items

      1 , 1 , 2
      Medical Education
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Script Concordance Tests: Guidelines for Construction

          Background SCT is used to assess clinical reasoning in ambiguous or uncertain situations. It allows testing on real-life situations that are not adequately measured with current tests. It probes the multiple judgments that are made in the clinical reasoning process. Scoring reflects the degree of concordance of these judgments to those of a panel of reference experts. Method SCT is an item format that is gaining acceptance in education in the health professions. However, there are no detailed guidelines on item writing, test scoring or test optimization. Results The item format is described and the steps for preparing and administering reliable and valid SCTs are presented. Conclusion SCTs probe examinees on a specific clinical reasoning task: data interpretation, a crucial step in the clinical reasoning process. It is inferred that a high degree of concordance corresponds to optimal use of information in the context of these specific tasks and therefore provides an indication of clinical reasoning quality.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Script concordance testing: a review of published validity evidence.

            Script concordance test (SCT) scores are intended to reflect respondents' competence in interpreting clinical data under conditions of uncertainty. The validity of inferences based on SCT scores has not been rigorously established. This study was conducted in order to develop a structured validity argument for the interpretation of test scores derived through use of the script concordance method. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases for articles pertaining to script concordance testing. We then reviewed these articles to evaluate the construct validity of the script concordance method, following an established approach for analysing validity data from five categories: content; response process; internal structure; relations to other variables, and consequences. Content evidence derives from clear guidelines for the creation of authentic, ill-defined scenarios. High internal consistency reliability supports the internal structure of SCT scores. As might be expected, SCT scores correlate poorly with assessments of pure factual knowledge, in which correlations for more advanced learners are lower. The validity of SCT scores is weakly supported by evidence pertaining to examinee response processes and educational consequences. Published research generally supports the use of SCT to assess the interpretation of clinical data under conditions of uncertainty, although specifics of the validity argument vary and require verification in different contexts and for particular SCTs. Our review identifies potential areas of further validity inquiry in all five categories of evidence. In particular, future SCT research might explore the impact of the script concordance method on teaching and learning, and examine how SCTs integrate with other assessment methods within comprehensive assessment programmes. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2011.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Script concordance testing: from theory to practice: AMEE guide no. 75.

              The script concordance test (SCT) is used in health professions education to assess a specific facet of clinical reasoning competence: the ability to interpret medical information under conditions of uncertainty. Grounded in established theoretical models of knowledge organization and clinical reasoning, the SCT has three key design features: (1) respondents are faced with ill-defined clinical situations and must choose between several realistic options; (2) the response format reflects the way information is processed in challenging problem-solving situations; and (3) scoring takes into account the variability of responses of experts to clinical situations. SCT scores are meant to reflect how closely respondents' ability to interpret clinical data compares with that of experienced clinicians in a given knowledge domain. A substantial body of research supports the SCT's construct validity, reliability, and feasibility across a variety of health science disciplines, and across the spectrum of health professions education from pre-clinical training to continuing professional development. In practice, its performance as an assessment tool depends on careful item development and diligent panel selection. This guide, intended as a primer for the uninitiated in SCT, will cover the basic tenets, theoretical underpinnings, and construction principles governing script concordance testing.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medical Education
                Med Educ
                Wiley
                03080110
                March 2018
                March 2018
                January 09 2018
                : 52
                : 3
                : 336-346
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Medicine; University of Notre Dame; Sydney New South Wales Australia
                [2 ]Adelaide Medical School; University of Adelaide; Adelaide South Australia Australia
                Article
                10.1111/medu.13495
                88eef92e-66df-472c-b30b-943d061abcad
                © 2018

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article