Perceived and actual value of Student-led Objective Structured Clinical Examinations

Brandon Stretton; Adam Montagu; Aline Kunnel; Jenni Louise; Nathan Behrendt; Joshua Kovoor; Stephen Bacchi; Josephine Thomas; Ellen Davies

doi:10.1111/tct.13754

Perceived and actual value of Student-led Objective Structured Clinical Examinations

Clin Teach. 2024 Mar 1:e13754. doi: 10.1111/tct.13754. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Brandon Stretton¹, Adam Montagu², Aline Kunnel³, Jenni Louise³, Nathan Behrendt¹, Joshua Kovoor^{1

4}, Stephen Bacchi¹, Josephine Thomas¹, Ellen Davies²

Affiliations

¹ Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
² Adelaide Health Simulation, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
³ Biostatistics Unit, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
⁴ Ballarat Base Hospital, Grampians Health Ballarat, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.

PMID: 38429878
DOI: 10.1111/tct.13754

Abstract

Introduction: Student-led Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) provide formative learning opportunities prior to Faculty-led OSCEs. It is important to undertake quality assurance measurements of peer-led assessments because, if they are found to be unreliable and invalid, they may have detrimental impacts. The objectives of this study were to explore and evaluate Student-led OSCEs hosted by fifth-year medical students.

Methods: Student-led OSCE results were analysed to examine reliability (Cronbach's alpha). The relationship between Student-led and Faculty-led OSCEs was evaluated using linear regression. Qualitative data were acquired by survey and semi-structured interviews and were analysed using an inductive content analysis approach.

Results: In total, 85 (94%) of 91 eligible students consented to study participation. Student-led OSCEs had a low-moderate reliability [Cronbach alpha = 0.47 (primary care) and 0.61 (human reproduction/paediatrics) (HRH)]. A statistically significant, positive relationship between Student-led and Faculty-led OSCE results was observed. Faculty-led OSCE grades increased by 0.49 (95% CI: 0.18, 0.80) to 1.09 (95% CI: 0.67, 1.52), for each percentage increase in Student-led OSCE result. Student-led OSCE participants highly valued the authentic peer-assessed experience. Reported benefits included a reduction of perceived stress and anxiety prior to Faculty-led OSCEs, recognition of learning gaps, contribution to overall clinical competency and facilitation of collaboration between peers.

Discussion: Student-led OSCEs are moderately reliable and can predict Faculty-led OSCE performance. This form of near-peer assessment encourages the metacognitive process of reflective practice and can be effectively implemented to direct further study. Faculties should collaborate with their student bodies to facilitate Student-led OSCEs and offer assistance to improve the quality, and benefits, of these endeavours.

Abstract

Grants and funding