ArticleIndian journal of pharmacology2016
Introducing objective structured practical examination as a method of learning and evaluation for undergraduate pharmacology.
Article in Indian journal of pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quick response-code linked video-based objective structured practical examination: Bridging gaps in pharmacology education.Indian journal of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Article
- Does gender influence learning, perceptions and retention in regional anatomy dissection courses?Anatomical science international · 2026Article
- Article
- A comparison of 1- versus 3-month regional anatomy exposure on learning outcomes of undergraduate medical students.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Implementation of the first Objective Structured Practical Examination in veterinary medicine in Spain: a two-year experimental study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Comparison of Objective Structured Practical Examination (OSPE) Versus Conventional Pathology Practical Examination Methods Among the Second-Year Medical Students-a Cross-sectional Study.Medical science educator · 2020Article
- Is Objective Structured Practical Examination a Better Option than Conventional Practical Examination in Assessing Students' Competency? An Analytical Research.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social MedicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAssessment method can influence student learning. Use of objective structured practical examination (OSPE) has been reported in various institutes with great benefits. We evaluated OSPE for the assessment of practical skills in pharmacology examination for undergraduate medical students and compared it with conventional practical examination (CPE). MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter sensitizing the 2
resultsCronbach's alpha of the feedback questionnaire was 0.71, with high internal consistency. The feedback given was categorized into three domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective, and an assessment was also done for its further use. In cognitive domain, 74% of the students felt that the questions asked and the syllabus taught were well correlated. In psychomotor domain, 81% agreed that it is excellent for assessing the applied part of the subject. Seventy percent of students opined that it was associated with lesser stress than CPE. On overall assessment, 76% rated this methodology as good/satisfactory and 23% as excellent in terms of better scoring. There was a significant difference in the mean score between the results of OSPE and CPE (
conclusionOSPE is a feasible and skill enhancing tool for the assessment in pharmacology examinations for undergraduate students.
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.