Validity of three clinical performance assessments of internal medicine clerks

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze the construct validity of three methods to assess the clinical performances of internal medicine clerks.

Method: A multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) study was conducted at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine to determine the convergent and divergent validity of a clinical evaluation form (CEF) completed by faculty and residents, an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), and the medicine subject test of the National Board of Medical Examiners. Three traits were involved in the analysis: clinical skills, knowledge, and personal characteristics. A correlation matrix was computed for 410 third-year students who completed the clerkship between August 1988 and July 1991.

Results: There was a significant (p < .01) convergence of the four correlations that assessed the same traits by using different methods. However, the four convergent correlations were of moderate magnitude (ranging from .29 to .47). Divergent validity was assessed by comparing the magnitudes of the convergence correlations with the magnitudes of correlations among unrelated assessments (i.e., different traits by different methods). Seven of nine possible coefficients were smaller than the convergent coefficients, suggesting evidence of divergent validity. A significant CEF method effect was identified.

Conclusion: There was convergent validity and some evidence of divergent validity with a significant method effect. The findings were similar for correlations corrected for attenuation. Four conclusions were reached: (1) the reliability of the OSCE must be improved, (2) the CEF ratings must be redesigned to further discriminate among the specific traits assessed, (3) additional methods to assess personal characteristics must be instituted, and (4) several assessment methods should be used to evaluate individual student performances.