Project description:Examiners' judgements play a critical role in competency-based assessments such as objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). The standardised nature of OSCEs and their alignment with regulatory accountability assure their wide use as high-stakes assessment in medical education. Research into examiner behaviours has predominantly explored the desirable psychometric characteristics of OSCEs, or investigated examiners' judgements from a cognitive rather than a sociocultural perspective. This study applies cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) to address this gap in exploring examiners' judgements in a high-stakes OSCE. Based on the idea that OSCE examiners' judgements are socially constructed and mediated by their clinical roles, the objective was to explore the sociocultural factors that influenced examiners' judgements of student competence and use the findings to inform examiner training to enhance assessment practice. Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted with examiners who assessed medical student competence in progressing to the next stage of training in a large-scale OSCE at one Australian university. The initial thematic analysis provided a basis for applying CHAT iteratively to explore the sociocultural factors and, specifically, the contradictions created by interactions between different elements such as examiners and rules, thus highlighting the factors influencing examiners' judgements. The findings indicated four key factors that influenced examiners' judgements: examiners' contrasting beliefs about the purpose of the OSCE; their varying perceptions of the marking criteria; divergent expectations of student competence; and idiosyncratic judgement practices. These factors were interrelated with the activity systems of the medical school's assessment practices and the examiners' clinical work contexts. Contradictions were identified through the guiding principles of multi-voicedness and historicity. The exploration of the sociocultural factors that may influence the consistency of examiners' judgements was facilitated by applying CHAT as an analytical framework. Reflecting upon these factors at organisational and system levels generated insights for creating fit-for-purpose examiner training to enhance assessment practice.

Project description:BackgroundTeaching and assessment of communication skills have become essential in medical education. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) has been found as an appropriate means to assess communication skills within medical education. Studies have demonstrated the importance of a valid assessment of medical students' communication skills. Yet, the validity of the performance scores depends fundamentally on the quality of the rating scales used in an OSCE. Thus, this systematic review aimed at providing an overview of existing rating scales, describing their underlying definition of communication skills, determining the methodological quality of psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of the identified rating scales.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify psychometrically tested rating scales, which have been applied in OSCE settings to assess communication skills of medical students. Our search strategy comprised three databases (EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PubMed), reference tracking and consultation of experts. We included studies that reported psychometric properties of communication skills assessment rating scales used in OSCEs by examiners only. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was evaluated using the quality criteria of Terwee and colleagues.ResultsData of twelve studies reporting on eight rating scales on communication skills assessment in OSCEs were included. Five of eight rating scales were explicitly developed based on a specific definition of communication skills. The methodological quality of studies was mainly poor. The psychometric quality of the eight rating scales was mainly intermediate.DiscussionOur results reveal that future psychometric evaluation studies focusing on improving the methodological quality are needed in order to yield psychometrically sound results of the OSCEs assessing communication skills. This is especially important given that most OSCE rating scales are used for summative assessment, and thus have an impact on medical students' academic success.

Project description:ObjectivesThe qualitative subjective assessment has been exercised either by self-reflection (self-assessment (SA)) or by an observer (peer assessment (PA)) and is considered to play an important role in students' development. The objectivity of PA and SA by students as well as those by faculty examiners has remained debated. This matters most when it comes to a high-stakes examination. We explored the degree of objectivity in PA, SA, as well as the global rating by examiners being Examiners' Subjective Assessment (ESA) compared with Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE).DesignProspective cohort study.SettingUndergraduate medical students at Alfaisal University, Riyadh.ParticipantsAll second-year medical students (n=164) of genders, taking a course to learn clinical history taking and general physical examination.Main outcome measuresA Likert scale questionnaire was distributed among the participants during selected clinical skills sessions. Each student was evaluated randomly by peers (PA) as well as by himself/herself (SA). Two OSCEs were conducted where students were assessed by an examiner objectively as well as subjectively (ESA) for a global rating of confidence and well-preparedness. OSCE-1 had fewer topics and stations, whereas OSCE-2 was terminal and full scale.ResultsOSCE-1 (B=0.10) and ESA (B=8.16) predicted OSCE-2 scores. 'No nervousness' in PA (r=0.185, p=0.018) and 'confidence' in SA (r=0.207, p=0.008) correlated with 'confidence' in ESA. In 'well-preparedness', SA correlated with ESA (r=0.234, p=0.003).ConclusionsOSCE-1 and ESA predicted students' performance in the OSCE-2, a high-stakes evaluation, indicating practical 'objectivity' in ESA, whereas SA and PA had minimal predictive role. Certain components of SA and PA correlated with ESA, suggesting partial objectivity given the limited objectiveness of ESA. Such difference in 'qualitative' objectivity probably reflects experience. Thus, subjective assessment can be used with some degree of objectivity for continuous assessment.

Project description:BackgroundPhysicians' communication skills (CS) are known to significantly affect the quality of health care. Communication skills training programs are part of most undergraduate medical curricula and are usually assessed in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) throughout the curriculum. The adoption of reliable measurement instruments is thus essential to evaluate such skills.MethodsUsing Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) and Item Response Theory analysis (IRT) the current retrospective study tested the factorial validity and reliability of a four-item global rating scale developed by Hodges and McIlroy to measure CS among 296 third- and fourth-year medical students at the Faculty of Medicine in Geneva, Switzerland, during OSCEs.ResultsEFA results at each station showed good reliability scores. However, measurement invariance assessments through MGCFA across different stations (i.e., same students undergoing six or three stations) and across different groups of stations (i.e., different students undergoing groups of six or three stations) were not satisfactory, failing to meet the minimum requirements to establish measurement invariance and thus possibly affecting reliable comparisons between students' communication scores across stations. IRT revealed that the four communication items provided overlapping information focusing especially on high levels of the communication spectrum.ConclusionsUsing this four-item set in its current form it may be difficult to adequately differentiate between students who are poor in CS from those who perform better. Future directions in best-practices to assess CS among medical students in the context of OSCE may thus focus on (1) training examiners so to obtain scores that are more coherent across stations; and (2) evaluating items in terms of their ability to cover a wider spectrum of medical students' CS. In this respect, IRT can prove to be very useful for the continuous evaluation of CS measurement instruments in performance-based assessments.

Project description:BackgroundThe outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its quick progression to a global pandemic has urged medical schools to shift from didactic to distance learning and assessment approaches. The quality of clinical training and assessment have been jeopardized due to the regulatory restrictions and potential hazards to human lives. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the utility and efficacy of an electronic Objective Structured Clinical Examination (e-OSCE), which attempted to transform the format of a face-to-face OSCE to an e-OSCE.MethodsWe conducted three end of clerkship e-OSCEs for final year medical students in Surgery, Medicine and Family Medicine using the teleconferencing application of Microsoft Teams (MST). The e-OSCE blueprint included the assessment of all clinical skills except physical examination and procedural skills. Examiners supervised e-OSCE from the college campus, while all students were remotely assessed through the MST channels. During the exam, the students stayed in their specified MST channel and examiners rotated across all students. The utility and efficacy of e-OSCE was evaluated using a self-administered questionnaire for students, examiners and e-OSCE team.ResultsThe data analysis showed that 93.4% students and 92.2% examiners agreed with the quality and process of e-OSCE. Similarly, 83.6% students and 98% examiners agreed with the seamless organization of e-OSCE. As many as 45.9% students and 74.5% examiners agreed that e-OSCE was close to real life practice. Approximately one fifth of students and one third of examiners preferred e-OSCE over the face-to-face OSCE. The analysis of qualitative data generated the themes of e-OSCE structure and technology. While majority of participants were satisfied with e-OSCE, students were concerned about examiners' training and e-OSCE contents. Examiners and e-OSCE team recognized the paper-less, tech-savy, fast and reliable format of e-OSCE.ConclusionDuring and beyond COVID- 19 era, e-OSCE is a strong substitute to standard OSCE for assessing clinical competence except for physical examination and procedural skills. The planning and implementation of e-OSCE reflects an ingenuity in the assessment of clinical competencies of medical students.

Dataset Information

Examining Skills and Abilities During the Pandemic – Psychology Students’ and Examiners’ Perceptions of a Digital OSCE

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets