Main Article Content
Introduction: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is considered a useful method of assessing clinical skills besides Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) and clinical evaluations.
Aim: To explore the acceptance of medical students to this assessment tool in medical education and to determine whether the assessment results of MCQs and faculty clinical evaluations agree with the respective OSCE scores of 4th year medical students (Med IV).
Methods: performance of a total of 223 Med IV students distributed on academic years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 in OSCE, MCQs and faculty evaluations were compared. Out of the total 93 students were asked randomly to fill a questionnaire about their attitudes and acceptance of this tool. The OSCE was conducted every two months for two different groups of medical students who had completed their family medicine rotation, while faculty evaluation based on observation by assessors was submitted on a monthly basis upon the completion of the rotation. The final exam for the family medicine clerkship was performed at the end of the 4thacademic year, and it consisted of MCQs
Results: Students highly commended the OSCE as a tool of evaluation by faculty members as it provides a true measure of required clinical skills and communication skills compared to MCQs and faculty evaluation. The study showed a significant positive correlation between the OSCE scores and the clinical evaluation scores while there was no association between the OSCE score and the final exam scores.
Conclusion: Student showed high appreciation and acceptance of this type of clinical skills testing. Despite the fact that OSCEs make them more stressed than other modalities of assessment, it remained the preferred one.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Copyrights for articles published in IJIER journals are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
2. Kampmeier J, Rau T, Liebhardt H, Fegert JM, Lang GK. Adoption of OSCE Examination Procedures in Ophthalmology. KlinMonblAugenheilkd. 2011 jun;228(6):550-4
3. Taylor M.L., Blue A.V., Mainous A.G., Geesey M.E., Basco W.T. The relationship between the National Board of Medical Examiners’ prototype of the step 2 clinical skills exam and interns’ performance. Acad Med.2005; 80(5):496–501.
4. Park S.E., Susarla S.M., Massey W. Do admissions data and NBDE Part I scores predict clinical performance among dental students? J Dent Educ. 2006. 70(5):518–24.
5. Webb S.C. Evaluating tests as predictors of dental school grades. J Dent Educ.1958; 22:33–45.
6. Hangorsky U. Clinical competency levels of fourth-year dental students as determined by board examiners and faculty members. J Am Dent Assoc. 1981; 102:35–7.
7. Bergman A.V., Susarla S.M., Howell T.H., Karimbux N.Y. Dental admissions test scores and performance on NBDE Part I, revisited. J Dent Educ. 2006; 70(3):258–62
8. Wass, V., C. Van der Vleuten, Shatzer J, Jones R et al. (2001). "Assessment of clinical competence." Lancet 357(9260): 945-949
9. Lazarus J., Kent A.P. Student attitudes towards the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and conventional methods of assessment. S Afr Med J. Sep 10 1983; 64(11):390-4
10. Eileen Furlong,Patricia Fox, Marie Lavin, Rita Collins .Oncology nursing students’ views of a modified OSCE.European Journal of Oncology NursingVolume 9, Issue 4, December 2005, Pages 351–359
11. SeyleH.Stress in Health and Disease.Butterworth, Boston (1976)
12. Sturpe DA, Huynh D, Haines ST. Scoring objectivestructuredclinical examinations using video monitors or video recordings. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010 Apr 12;74(3):44
13. Metheny W.P. Limitations of physician ratings in the assessment of student clinical performance in an obstetrics and gynecology clerkship.Obstet Gynecol. July1991; 78(1):136-41
14. Kreiter, C.D; Ferguson, K., Lee, W.C., Brennan, R.L.; Densen P. A generalizability study of a new standardized rating form used to evaluate students' clinical clerkship performances. Acad Med. Dec 1998; 73(12): 1294-8
15. Mostafa Amr and Tarek Amin: Assessment Methods of an Undergraduate Psychiatry Course at a Saudi University. SQU Med J, May 2012, Vol. 12, Iss. 2, pp. 214-224,
16. Hendricson W.D., Andrieu S.C., Chadwick D.G., Chmar J.E., Cole J.R., George M.C., et al. Educational strategies associated with development of problem-solving, critical thinking, and self-directed learning. J Dent Educ.2006; 70(9):925–36.