Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
Med Educ. 2008 Apr;42(4):350-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02999.x. Epub 2008 Feb 20.

Quality of standardised patient research reports in the medical education literature: review and recommendations.

Author information

  • 1Department of Educational Leadership, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA. ldhowley@bellsouth.net

Abstract

CONTEXT:

In order to assess or replicate the research findings of published reports, authors must provide adequate and transparent descriptions of their methods. We conducted 2 consecutive studies, the first to define reporting standards relating to the use of standardised patients (SPs) in research, and the second to evaluate the current literature according to these standards.

METHODS:

Standards for reporting SPs in research were established by representatives of the Grants and Research Committee of the Association of Standardized Patient Educators (ASPE). An extensive literature search yielded 177 relevant English-language articles published between 1993 and 2005. Search terms included: 'standardised patient(s)'; 'simulated patient(s)'; 'objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)', and 'clinical skills assessment'. Articles were limited to those reporting the use of SPs as an outcome measure and published in 1 of 5 prominent health sciences education journals. Data regarding the SP encounter, SP characteristics, training and behavioural measure(s) were gathered.

RESULTS:

A random selection of 121 articles was evaluated according to 29 standards. Reviewers judged that few authors provided sufficient details regarding the encounter (21%, n = 25), SPs (16%, n = 19), training (15%, n = 15), and behavioural measures (38%, n = 44). Authors rarely reported SP gender (27%, n = 33) and age range (22%, n = 26), whether training was provided for the SPs (39%, n = 47) or other raters (24%, n = 29), and psychometric evidence to support the behavioural measure (23%, n = 25).

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings suggest that there is a need for increased rigor in reporting research involving SPs. In order to support the validity of research findings, journal editors, reviewers and authors are encouraged to provide adequate detail when describing SP methodology.

PMID:
18298448
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Blackwell Publishing
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk