ArticleNursing and midwifery studies2015
Comparing the Effects of Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) and Traditional Method on Learning of Students.
Article in Nursing and midwifery studies, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning surgical knot tying and suturing technique - effects of different forms of training in a controlled randomized trial with dental students.GMS journal for medical education · 2023Trial
- Assessment of suturing and scaling skills of periodontology and oral medicine residents by OSATS method: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- The attitudes of international medical students toward educational methods and styles applied in a 6-year longitudinal course in fundamentals of medical skills in Croatia.Croatian medical journal · 2018Article
- Introducing objective structured practical examination as a method of learning and evaluation for undergraduate pharmacology.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the benefits of the objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) and it appropriateness for evaluating clinical abilities of nursing students , few studies are available on the application of this method in nursing education.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the effect of using OSATS and traditional methods on the students' learning. We also aimed to signify students' views about these two methods and their views about the scores they received in these methods in a medical emergency course. PATIENTS AND
methodsA quasi-experimental study was performed on 45 first semester students in nursing and medical emergencies passing a course on fundamentals of practice. The students were selected by a census method and evaluated by both the OSATS and traditional methods. Data collection was performed using checklists prepared based on the 'text book of nursing procedures checklists' published by Iranian nursing organization and a questionnaire containing learning rate and students' estimation of their received scores. Descriptive statistics as well as paired t-test and independent samples t-test were used in data analysis.
resultsThe mean of students' score in OSATS was significantly higher than their mean score in traditional method (P = 0.01). Moreover, the mean of self-evaluation score after the traditional method was relatively the same as the score the students received in the exam. However, the mean of self-evaluation score after the OSATS was relatively lower than the scores the students received in the OSATS exam. Most students believed that OSATS can evaluate a wide range of students' knowledge and skills compared to traditional method.
conclusionsResults of this study indicated the better effect of OSATS on learning and its relative superiority in precise assessment of clinical skills compared with the traditional evaluation method. Therefore, we recommend using this method in evaluation of students in practical courses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.