Written knowledge tests, OSCEs and situational judgement tests all show predictive validity for later clinical performance¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-31 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2028: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Studies linking earlier assessment scores to later workplace outcomes found positive relationships for written tests, OSCEs and SJTs, including inverse relationships with subsequent disciplinary action. → McLachlan JC 2025
Evidence¶
McLachlan JC 2025¶
McLachlan JC, Auta A, Ajiboye A. (2025). Assessment and evaluation of prescribing competences: A systematic review and recommendations. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.16033
q2 · i? · review · r2
The review's narrative synthesis of predictive validity studies (peer ratings, prescribing indicators, supervisor ratings, disciplinary outcomes) concludes that "written tests of declarative knowledge, practical tests such as OSCEs, and Situational Judgement Tests all have predictive validity for later clinical practice."
"The unequivocal conclusion that can be drawn is that written tests of declarative knowledge, practical tests such as OSCEs, and Situational Judgement Tests all have predictive validity for later clinical practice."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Oral exam scores correlate only modestly with written exams and OSCEs (r = 0.10–0.74), suggesting oral exams assess distinct skills — related
- The Assessment of Clinical Skills/Competence/Performance framework indicates four domains of competence: knowledge, competence, performance, and action. — related
- Predictive validity, cost, and differential attainment by demographics are not indicated in the prescribing assessment literature — related
- Multiple mini-interviews significantly predict early clinical exams (d=0.417) and early academic results (d=0.195), while panel interviews show no significant predictive effects — related
- Situational judgement tests show a statistically significant but negligible-magnitude effect on early program academic results (d=0.170), while personality test evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- OSCE validity correlations with other measures range from very weak to strong, suggesting OSCEs resemble narrow course examinations more than broad clinical practice — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.