Script Concordance Test
Autors: Benoit Carrière, François Caire
| Scenario (vignette) | Yes | No | To review |
| Describes a challenging situation, even for experts (ambiguous or uncertain situations, missing information) |
|||
| Describes an appropriate situation for examinees tested | |||
| The scenario is necessary in order to understand the question and to set the context | |||
| The clinical presentation is typical | |||
| The scenario is correctly written (length, confusion, missing clarity.) |
| Options (Diagnosis, investigation, and treatment) | Yes | No | To review |
| In the expert’s opinion, the options are relevant | |||
| The same option is not found in two consecutive questions |
| The new information (2nd column) | Yes | No | To review |
| Makes it possible to test the link between the new information and the option (1st column) in the described context | |||
| Questions are developed to spread the answers equally over all the values of the Likert scale (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2) |
|||
| The items correspond to questions that are relevant in a similar real clinical situation |
| Expert’s panel | Yes | No | To review |
| Number between 10 and 20 | |||
| Experts take the test individually, in exactly the same conditions as the examinees | |||
| The expert’s panel includes experienced physicians whose presence in a jury is appropriate to the level of the examinees assessed. |
1 Caire F, Sol JC, Moreau JJ, Isidori P, Charlin B: Auto évaluation des internes en Neurochirurgie par test de concordance des scripts (SCT): processus d’évaluation des tests. Neurochirurgie 2004, 50: 66-72