Claims

OSATS was the most frequently used technical-skills assessment tool, but many OSATS variations were used without validity evidence

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2027: 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.

q3 i? OSATS was the most frequently used TS tool; of 16 studies using variations of OSATS, only 9 used variations with validity evidence. → Gamborg ML 2024

Evidence

Gamborg ML 2024

Gamborg ML, Salling LB, Rölfing JD, Jensen RD. (2024). Training technical or non-technical skills: an arbitrary distinction? A scoping review. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06419-6

q3 · i? · review · r3

Synthesis of assessment tools used across included studies, charted per publication. The review reports "Sixteen studies used variations of OSATS to assess TS [37], but only 9 of these used variations including validity evidence." Table 1 additionally lists 52 studies using OSATS itself with validity evidence.

"Sixteen studies used variations of OSATS to assess TS [37], but only 9 of these used variations including validity evidence."

Discussion

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.