Psychometrics of OSCE Standardized Patient Measurements

This study examined the reliability and validity of scores taken from a series of four task simulations used to evaluate medical students. The four role-play exercises represented two different cases or scripts, yielding two pairs of exercises that are considered alternate forms. The design allowed examining what is essentially the ceiling for reliability and validity of ratings taken in such role plays. A multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrix was computed with exercises as methods and competencies (history taking, clinical skills, and communication) as traits. The results within alternate forms (within cases) were then used as a baseline to evaluate the reliability and validity of scores between the alternate forms (between cases). There was much less of an exercise effect (method variance, monomethod bias) in this study than is typically found in MTMM matrices for performance measurement. However, the convergent validity of the dimensions across exercises was weak both within and between cases. The study also examined the reliability of ratings by training raters to watch video recordings of the same four exercises who then complete the same forms used by the standardized patients. Generalizability analysis was used to compute variance components for case, station, rater, and ratee (medical student), which allowed the computation of reliability estimates for multiple designs. Both the generalizability analysis and the MTMM analysis indicated that rather long examinations (approximately 20 to 40 exercises) would be needed to create reliable examination scores for this population of examinees. Additionally, interjudge agreement was better for more objective dimensions (history taking, physical examination) than for the more subjective dimension (communication)

Does Agreeableness Help a Team Perform a Problem Solving Task?

The relationship between mean team Agreeableness and team performance has not been shown definitively. The present study was performed looking at archival data from a study that assessed team performance from 62 two person teams using the DDD and involving two types of training and two types of information probes during the computer task. In addition, each of the participants took a personality test based on the IPIP with an emphasis on Agreeableness and its 6 facets. Using HLM analysis, it was determined that Agreeableness does not have a significant effect on team performance for a problem solving tasks (delta chi square 2.04, p=n.s.), however it did significantly effect how an individual performed (delta chi square=18.06, p=.001) on the problem solving task. Intelligence had a significant effect on team performance (delta chi square=569.08, p=.001) and this may have washed out any personality effects. In addition, a linear regression indicated than none of the six facets of Agreeableness had a significant effect on team performance on a problem solving task

Technology and Health

This article reviews the link between technology and health. It begins with a brief discussion of workplace health issues brought about through technologically induced strains such as musculoskeletal disorders, carpal tunnel, and psychological stress. It covers recent advances in keyboard design along with other novel approaches to limiting the associated strains on the body. It also covers worker\u27s expectations and remote environments, identifying how these may lead to decrements in physical and mental health. Some health concerns occur in many workers, others are specific to teleworkers. This article moves on to computer-mediated collaboration and considers issues specific to work teams that coordinate efforts through technology. Furthermore, it introduces some newer developments in the technology arena. The list is by no means exhaustive, but rather, involve technologies that will either become more prevalent or carry the greatest implications for further changing the nature of work

The Team Personality–Team Performance Relationship Revisited: The Impact of Criterion Choice, Pattern of Workflow, and Method of Aggregation

Using meta-analytic evidence, this study tested trait- and task-based theoretical approaches to team personality management, using both team behaviors and team outcomes as criteria. Trait theories state that maximization of the team trait is harmful for Extroversion (complementary team fit) but beneficial for Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability (supplementary fit). Task-based theories state that tasks with few work exchanges are best reflected by mean trait scores, whereas tasks with frequent work exchanges are best represented by other types of scores (e.g., minimum score). Correlations between different aggregations of team personality and team performance were coded, as well as the study criterion choice and the pattern of workflow (as moderators). Partial support for both trait and task theories were found. Team Conscientiousness and Agreeableness provided supplementary fit primarily with team behaviors, but there was mixed evidence that Extroversion provided complementary fit. Furthermore, minimum and variance measures of the team trait related to team performance in tasks with frequent work exchanges, but not in tasks with few work exchanges. Results suggest several limitations with existing measurement methods, which are discussed