Intra-rater reliability of in-person versus simulated remote synchronous faculty evaluation of pharmacy student objective structured clinical examinations

IF 1.4 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Alex N. Isaacs , Jenny L. Newlon , Kimberly S. Illingworth , Alan J. Zillich , Zachary A. Weber , Jamie L. Woodyard
{"title":"Intra-rater reliability of in-person versus simulated remote synchronous faculty evaluation of pharmacy student objective structured clinical examinations","authors":"Alex N. Isaacs ,&nbsp;Jenny L. Newlon ,&nbsp;Kimberly S. Illingworth ,&nbsp;Alan J. Zillich ,&nbsp;Zachary A. Weber ,&nbsp;Jamie L. Woodyard","doi":"10.1016/j.cptl.2025.102520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The utilization of objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) provides a vital learning and assessment opportunity within health professions education. While technology has been utilized, there is a lack of comparison of in-person versus remote synchronous OSCE evaluation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the intra-rater reliability of faculty evaluation in-person versus simulated remote synchronous evaluation of pharmacy student OSCE performance.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>For three academic years, pharmacy student OSCE performances in two professional years at one institution were recorded while the instructors evaluated the students in-person. Following a six-month washout, instructors evaluated the same students remotely simulating synchronous evaluation using the same standardized rubric. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine the evaluator intra-rater reliability. Overall and individual OSCE station scores, the need to remediate, and overall course grades were compared between the cohorts.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 157 out of 380 OSCE activities were evaluated both in-person and remotely by 11 faculty members. The ICC scores were 0.9 overall and 0.9 for each individual year's OSCE station. There was a difference in overall OSCE scores based on simulated remote synchronous versus in-person assessment (84.0 % vs. 85.0 %) and for the individual P3 OSCE station (84.5 % vs. 86.0 %); however, there was no difference in the number of students requiring remediation or overall course grades.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study demonstrated excellent intra-rater reliability between in-person and remote synchronous evaluations of an in-person pharmacy student OSCE. The study findings suggest remote synchronous evaluation is a viable alternative to in-person evaluation of OSCEs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47501,"journal":{"name":"Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning","volume":"18 2","pages":"Article 102520"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877129725002412","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The utilization of objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) provides a vital learning and assessment opportunity within health professions education. While technology has been utilized, there is a lack of comparison of in-person versus remote synchronous OSCE evaluation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the intra-rater reliability of faculty evaluation in-person versus simulated remote synchronous evaluation of pharmacy student OSCE performance.

Methods

For three academic years, pharmacy student OSCE performances in two professional years at one institution were recorded while the instructors evaluated the students in-person. Following a six-month washout, instructors evaluated the same students remotely simulating synchronous evaluation using the same standardized rubric. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine the evaluator intra-rater reliability. Overall and individual OSCE station scores, the need to remediate, and overall course grades were compared between the cohorts.

Results

A total of 157 out of 380 OSCE activities were evaluated both in-person and remotely by 11 faculty members. The ICC scores were 0.9 overall and 0.9 for each individual year's OSCE station. There was a difference in overall OSCE scores based on simulated remote synchronous versus in-person assessment (84.0 % vs. 85.0 %) and for the individual P3 OSCE station (84.5 % vs. 86.0 %); however, there was no difference in the number of students requiring remediation or overall course grades.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated excellent intra-rater reliability between in-person and remote synchronous evaluations of an in-person pharmacy student OSCE. The study findings suggest remote synchronous evaluation is a viable alternative to in-person evaluation of OSCEs.
面对面与模拟远程同步教师评估药学学生客观结构化临床检查的内部信度。
前言:客观结构化临床检查(osce)的使用为卫生专业教育提供了重要的学习和评估机会。虽然利用了技术,但缺乏对欧安组织现场评估与远程同步评估的比较。本研究的目的是评估教师亲自评估与模拟远程同步评估药房学生OSCE绩效的内部可靠性。方法:对某院校药学专业学生三个学年的OSCE成绩进行记录,并由指导教师对学生进行现场评价。在6个月的淘汰期后,教师用相同的标准化标准远程模拟同步评估,对同一批学生进行评估。计算类内相关系数(ICC)来确定评估者的类内信度。比较各组之间的总体和个人欧安组织站得分、补救需要和总体课程成绩。结果:在380项欧安组织活动中,共有157项活动由11名教员进行了现场和远程评估。国际商会的总体得分为0.9,欧安组织各年度得分为0.9。基于模拟远程同步评估与现场评估的总体OSCE得分(84.0%对85.0%)和单个P3 OSCE站(84.5%对86.0%)存在差异;然而,在需要补习的学生人数或整体课程成绩方面没有差异。结论:本研究证明了现场和远程同步评估对一名药学学生OSCE的评价具有良好的评分内信度。研究结果表明,远程同步评估是oses现场评估的可行替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
192
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书