Objectives: Research on objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) is extensive. However, relatively little has been written on the development of case-specific checklists on history taking and physical examination. Background information on the development of these checklists is a key element of the assessment of their content validity. Usually, expert panels are involved in the development of checklists. The objective of this study is to compare expert-based items on OSCE checklists with evidence-based items identified in the literature.
Methods: Evidence-based items covering both history taking and physical examination for specific clinical problems and diseases were identified in the literature. Items on nine expert-based checklists for OSCE examination stations were evaluated by comparing them with items identified in the literature. The data were grouped into three categories: (i) expert-based items; (ii) evidence-based items, and (iii) evidence-based items with a specific measure of their relevance.
Results: Out of 227 expert-based items, 58 (26%) were not found in the literature. Of 388 evidence-based items found in the literature, 219 (56%) were not included in the expert-based checklists. Of these 219 items, 82 (37%) had a specific measure of importance, such as an odds ratio for a diagnosis, making that diagnosis more or less probable.
Conclusions: Expert-based, case-specific checklist items developed for OSCE stations do not coincide with evidence-based items identified in the literature. Further research is needed to ascertain what this inconsistency means for test validity.