OSCE Standard Setting: Three Borderline Group Methods

Smee, Sydney; Coetzee, Karen; Bartman, Ilona; Roy, Marguerite; Monteiro, Sandra

doi:10.1007/s40670-022-01667-x

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 Candidates conduct practical tests through a series of predesigned exam stations, including standardised patients (SP), practical operations on medical simulators, collection of clinical data and document retrieval. 4 The exam station is divided into long and short stations, with a duration ranging from 5 min to 20 min; candidates are evaluated by the examiner or SP. 5 However, given that the OSCE requires a person-in-person offline operation, some objective factors, such as the restrictions of the COVID-19 epidemic some time ago, [6][7][8] the development of virtual reality (VR) technology in the field of nursing education, [9][10][11] and the increasingly popular cross-regional and multicentre joint training, 12 13 exist.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of virtual reality OSCE on nursing students’ education: a study protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu,

Dong,

Liu

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionVirtual objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) has been shown to influence the performance of nursing students. However, its specific effects, particularly students’ competence, stress, anxiety, confidence, satisfaction with virtual reality OSCE and examiners’ satisfaction, remain unclear.Method and analysisThis study aims to assess the effects of virtual reality OSCE on nursing students’ education. The study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol guidelines. A literature search is performed on electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EBSCO, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria adhere to the PICOS principle, encompassing nursing students, including those studying in school and those engaged in hospital internship. This review includes studies on the use of virtual reality OSCE as an assessment tool, compared with traditional clinical examinations, such as in-person OSCE. The outcome assessments encompass (1) competence, (2) stress, (3) anxiety, (4) confidence, (5) student satisfaction with virtual reality OSCE and (6) examiners’ satisfaction. These studies are designed as randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental research. The search time is from the inception of each database to 30 June 2023, without language restriction. Studies for inclusion are screened by two reviewers for data extraction dependently. Any dispute is resolved through discussion. Unresolved disputes are decided by consulting a third author. For the risk of bias (ROB) assessment, the Cochrane ROB tool for RCTs and the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of intervention tool are used. Moreover, RevMan V.5.3 is used for meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study protocol does not include any clinical research and thus does not require ethical approval. Research findings are published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023437685.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of virtual reality OSCE on nursing students’ education: a study protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu,

Dong,

Liu

et al. 2024

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cost management analysis of Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): guide to the universities of medical sciences

Miri,

Hoseinabadi,

Yaghobi

et al. 2024

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a crucial assessment tool for evaluating learners’ ability to apply theoretical knowledge in practical clinical situations. It is widely accepted by both students and educators, and the costs associated with conducting OSCE assessments vary depending on the field of study, how it is implemented, staffing needs, standardized patients, and duration of the examination. This study examines the expenses related to administering OSCEs in medical universities. Method Conducted from June to September 2023; this mixed-method study elucidated the cost intricacies of executing a two-day OSCE with 14 eight-minute stations for 100 nursing students. This process unfolds in two phases: a qualitative segment comprising text reviews and 45-minute in-depth interviews with faculty members and OSCE experts, leading to the development of a validated checklist, followed by a quantitative phase in which the tool was distributed to 25 faculty members and 5 specialists for completion. Result The examination costs were delineated into three primary components: time, human resources, equipment, consumables, and necessary supplies. In 2023, the total implementation cost of the OSCE for 100 students across 14 clinical stations was $1028.07, with an estimated per-learner cost of $37.50. Human resources incurred the highest expenditure ($1649.37); while supply costs were relatively lower ($1072.17). Educational infrastructure expenses were excluded because the study focused on the Nursing and Midwifery Faculty’s Clinical Skills Center. Conclusion Various factors influence OSCE costs, including national production capabilities of medical supplies, institutional credibility, governance status, examination frequency, student demographics, assessor composition, station count, course content, and examinee volume. The insights derived from this comprehensive examination are significant as entry benchmarks for healthcare systems and higher-level academic evaluations. Understanding OSCE cost dynamics facilitates resource optimization and assessment strategy refinement, thereby improving medical education efficacy.

show abstract

Standard setting OSCE: A comparison of arbitrary and Hofstee methods in a low stake OSCE

Khan

2024

TAPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare the cut scores and pass/fail rates achieved by arbitrary 60% method and Hofstee method in an undergraduate year 4 end semester objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and check the possibility of using Hofstee method of standard setting in future exams. Method: 102 medical students of year 4 underwent a 10 station OSCE exam conducted in a state of art simulation lab in 3 cycles. The cut scores were calculated using arbitrary method aiming at 60% of task achievement and by Hofstee method. The student’s obtained scores were compared for cut scores and pass rates for individual stations and the entire exam. Results: The arbitrary and Hofstee methods of standard setting leads to different cut scores. For the individual stations it was 60% vs 65-70% and for the overall score it was 60% vs 70%. The percentage of students failing the exam is 13.7% based on arbitrary scores and is 29.4% when Hofstee cut score is applied. Conclusions: The two methods lead to different cut scores and students’ failure rates. Overall, Hofstee method is more appropriate for assessing competencies in an OSCE exam in medical schools as it leads to calculation of cut scores based on the difficulty level of the station/exam and the examiners expected level of performance by the students. Keywords: Objective Structured Clinical Examination, Standard Setting, Hofstee Method, Arbitrary Method

show abstract

OSCE Standard Setting: Three Borderline Group Methods

Cited by 5 publications

References 21 publications

Effects of virtual reality OSCE on nursing students’ education: a study protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Effects of virtual reality OSCE on nursing students’ education: a study protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Cost management analysis of Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): guide to the universities of medical sciences

Standard setting OSCE: A comparison of arbitrary and Hofstee methods in a low stake OSCE

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About