Claims

Each OSCE station score correlates strongly with the total OSCE score, with a pooled Pearson correlation of 0.71

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · 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 each station score and the total score was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.79) with moderate heterogeneity. → 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 · r2

Random effects meta-analysis of correlations between individual station scores and total OSCE scores. The pooled estimate was "0.71 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.79)" with moderate heterogeneity I2 = 54.17%. No standardised effect size was printed for this finding.

"The pooled estimate of Pearson Correlation between each station score and the total score based on all the available data was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.79) with moderate statistical heterogeneity, I2 = 54.17% (Fig 5)."

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.