Claims

Structured viva shows significant inter-rater reliability between examiner pairs (r = 0.78 to 0.91) and high inter-rater agreement (86.7%)

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

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 i3 Inter-rater reliability for each pair of examiners and each question was significant (r = 0.78 to 0.91; p < 0.0001). → Abuzied Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan 2023 q2 i? One study reported inter-rater agreement of 86.7% in its structured viva exam. → Abuzied Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan 2023

Evidence

Abuzied Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan 2023

Abuzied Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan, Nabag Wisal Omer Mohamed. (2023). Structured viva validity, reliability, and acceptability as an assessment tool in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04524-6

q2 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

Narrative review of inter-rater reliability findings from included studies. The review reports significant inter-rater correlations of "r = 0.78 to 0.91" (p < 0.0001) and an inter-rater agreement percentage of 86.7% in one structured viva exam.

"A study showed significant inter-rater reliability for each pair of examiners and each question (r = 0.78 to 0.91; p < 0.0001) (27). Another study showed Interrater agreement of 86.7% as described by Roh et al. [22]."

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.