EXAMINATION OF CLINICAL EXAMINERS
Generate an AI Snapshot to get a quick, structured summary of this paper.
A concise AI-generated summary of the paper will appear here once you click Generate AI Snapshot.
TL;DR
The poor correlation between the marks awarded in the clinical tests in medicine and surgery, and between the medical clinical test and the written objective paper, suggested the need for more detailed investigations into the reliability of clinical examinations.
Abstract
The poor correlation between the marks awarded in the clinical tests in medicine and surgery, and between the medical clinical test and the written objective paper, suggested the need for more detailed investigations into the reliability of clinical examinations. Two examiners independently marked 29 candidates in a clinical examination in medicine, and the marks awarded were compared. In another examination 28 different students were examined on one short case by two examiners and the examination was recorded on videotape. This was subsequently marked by a further twelve examiners and again on two further occasions by the original examiners. Marks awarded by one examiner often varied considerably from those awarded by another examiner for the same performance. Inconsistency in the same examiner was also evident. This observed variation must be more widely recognised in determining the fate of candidates in clinical examinations.