↓ Skip to main content

Detection of Biased Rating of Medical Students by Standardized Patients: Opportunity for Improvement

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Science Educator, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Detection of Biased Rating of Medical Students by Standardized Patients: Opportunity for Improvement
Published in
Medical Science Educator, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40670-017-0418-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marian Manciu, Roszella Trevino, Zuber D. Mulla, Claudia Cortez, Sanja Kupesic Plavsic

Abstract

To assess the inter-rater reliability of standardized patients (SPs) as they assess the clinical skills of medical students and to detect possible rating bias in SPs. The ratings received by 6 students examined in 4 clinical stations by 13 SPs were examined. Each SP contributed at least 3 and at most 10 pairwise ratings, with an average of approximately 5 ratings per SP. The standard Cohen' kappa statistic was calculated and the distribution of scores among SPs was compared via both ANOVA the Kruskal-Wallis H test (one-way ANOVA by ranks). Furthermore, the number of discrepancies between pairwise raters (showing either "positive" or "negative" bias in the rating) were analyzed using ANOVA and a χ(2) goodness-of-fit test. The conventional method, which compared the statistics of kappa scores of the raters (including the prevalence-adjusted-bias adjusted kappa scores) did not reject the null hypothesis, that the raters (SPs) are similar. However, the analysis of the distribution of the discrepancies among the raters revealed that the differences between raters cannot be attributed to chance, particularly when a distinction was made between their overall "positive" and "negative" bias. A strong (p<0.001) "negative" bias was detected, and the SPs responsible for this bias have been identified. The statistical method suggested here, which takes into account explicitly the "positive" and the "negative" bias of the raters, is more sensitive than the conventional method (Cohens' kappa). Since the outliers (the biased SPs) affect the fairness of the grading of the medical students, it is important to detect any statistically-significant bias in the rating and to adjust correspondingly the SP's assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 33%
Researcher 2 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 22%
Environmental Science 1 11%
Psychology 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Unknown 4 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2017.
All research outputs
#16,538,222
of 24,332,257 outputs
Outputs from Medical Science Educator
#655
of 1,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,093
of 320,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Science Educator
#27
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,332,257 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,057 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.