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

Lisa Howley, Karen Szauter, Linda Perkowski, Maurice Clifton, Nancy McNaughton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)350-358
Number of pages9
JournalMedical Education
Volume42
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2008

Fingerprint

Medical Education
education
Research
health science
psychometrics
grant
English language
literature
editor
educator
examination
gender
Clinical Competence
methodology
Organized Financing
Health Education
Psychometrics
evidence
Language
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Keywords

  • *Education, medical
  • Biomedical research
  • Patient simulation
  • Periodicals as topic/*standards
  • Random allocation
  • Review [publication type]

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Education
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Quality of standardised patient research reports in the medical education literature : Review and recommendations. / Howley, Lisa; Szauter, Karen; Perkowski, Linda; Clifton, Maurice; McNaughton, Nancy.

In: Medical Education, Vol. 42, No. 4, 04.2008, p. 350-358.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Howley, Lisa ; Szauter, Karen ; Perkowski, Linda ; Clifton, Maurice ; McNaughton, Nancy. / Quality of standardised patient research reports in the medical education literature : Review and recommendations. In: Medical Education. 2008 ; Vol. 42, No. 4. pp. 350-358.
@article{ab8fc59ec0634471a842df0550e46cd2,
title = "Quality of standardised patient research reports in the medical education literature: Review and recommendations",
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.",
keywords = "*Education, medical, Biomedical research, Patient simulation, Periodicals as topic/*standards, Random allocation, Review [publication type]",
author = "Lisa Howley and Karen Szauter and Linda Perkowski and Maurice Clifton and Nancy McNaughton",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02999.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "350--358",
journal = "Medical Education",
issn = "0308-0110",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of standardised patient research reports in the medical education literature

T2 - Review and recommendations

AU - Howley, Lisa

AU - Szauter, Karen

AU - Perkowski, Linda

AU - Clifton, Maurice

AU - McNaughton, Nancy

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Education, medical

KW - Biomedical research

KW - Patient simulation

KW - Periodicals as topic/standards

KW - Random allocation

KW - Review [publication type]

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=40749083962&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=40749083962&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02999.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02999.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 18298448

AN - SCOPUS:40749083962

VL - 42

SP - 350

EP - 358

JO - Medical Education

JF - Medical Education

SN - 0308-0110

IS - 4

ER -