Claims

Cronbach's alpha values for OSCE scores vary widely across studies, ranging from 0.43 to 0.93, with most studies not reaching good internal consistency

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · 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.

q3 i? Among 23 included studies, Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.43 to 0.93; 11 studies achieved good internal consistency (alpha >= 0.8) while 15 did not (alpha 0.43-0.79). → Peng Qiyun 2025

Evidence

Peng Qiyun 2025

Peng Qiyun, Luo Jiani, Wang Chunyan, Chen Lei, Tan Shenglan. (2025). Impact of station number and duration time per station on the reliability of Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) scores: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-06691-0

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Descriptive synthesis of all 26 alpha values from 23 studies. The wide range (0.43-0.93) and the finding that 15 of 23 studies fell below the good-reliability threshold motivated the subgroup analyses by station number and duration.

"Among the 23 studies analyzed, Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.43 to 0.93 (Fig. 2). 11 studies demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >= 0.8), while 15 studies did not reach the good standard (Cronbach's alpha falling between 0.43 and 0.79)."

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.