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 expertbased 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.

The ECE proved to be a reliable clinical assessment that enables examinees to compose a clinical reasoning path through self-obtained data. The ECE can also be used as an assessment tool for separate clinical skills.

In this setting in the Netherlands, PA students and MDs score about equal in the appraisal of common cases in medical practice. The slightly lower scores of PA students' clinical reasoning in the full scope of clinical care may have raise attention to medical teams working with PAs and PA training programmes.