Claims

Correlations between different OSCE station scores are weak, with a pooled Pearson correlation of 0.27

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: 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? The pooled Pearson correlation between station scores was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.39) with high heterogeneity, indicating students who perform well on one station do not necessarily perform well on others. → Bobos Pavlos 2021

Evidence

Bobos Pavlos 2021

Bobos Pavlos, Pouliopoulou Dimitra V., Harriss Alexandra, Sadi Jackie, Rushton Alison, MacDermid Joy C. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties of objective structured clinical examinations used in physical therapy licensure and a structured review of licensure practices in countries with well-developed regulation systems. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255696

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Random effects meta-analysis of Pearson correlations between OSCE station scores across included studies. The pooled estimate was "0.27 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.39)" with high heterogeneity I2 = 71.55%. No standardised effect size was printed for this finding.

"The pooled estimate of Pearson’s correlation in between station score correlation was 0.27 (95% CI: 0.15, 0.39) with high statistical heterogeneity, I2 = 71.55% (Fig 4)."

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.