ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2017
The sights and insights of examiners in objective structured clinical examinations.
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI for Clinical Competency Assessment: Scoping Review of Methods and Applications.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Agreement Between Reasoning-Oriented Generative AI Models and Clinical Educators in Evaluating Japanese Objective Structured Clinical Examination Transcripts: Preliminary Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- AI-Generated Clinical Images of Head-and-Neck Lesions in Plastic Surgery Education: An Expert Evaluation.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Operationalising readiness for practice in final OSCEs: insights from a mixed-methods study across five Australian medical schools.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Performance of undergraduate nursing students across Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): a retrospective cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Optimizing cost-effectiveness in remote objective structured clinical examinations through targeted double scoring methodologies.Medical education online · 2025Article
- A single-group pre-post OSCE evaluation of a simulation-based clinical readiness module in pediatric dentistry.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Assessor Personality Traits Are Not Educationally Important Drivers of Assessor Stringency/Leniency.AEM education and training · 2025Article
- Medical student selection interviews: insights into nonverbal observable communications: a cross-sectional study.Korean journal of medical education · 2025Article
- Tailoring support following summative assessments: a latent profile analysis of student outcomes across five medical specialities.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025Article
- Perception of Medical and Nursing Students Plus Clinical Instructors Towards Objective Structured Clinical Examination: A Case Study of Five Health Training Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Knowledge Mapping and Global Trends in the Field of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination: Bibliometric and Visual Analysis (2004-2023).JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Raters and examinees training for objective structured clinical examination: comparing the effectiveness of three instructional methodologies.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Interactions between the sex of the clinician grader and the sex of the chiropractic student intern on spinal manipulation assessment grade.The Journal of chiropractic education · 2023Article
- Pre-COVID and COVID experience of objective structured clinical examination as a learning tool for post-graduate residents in Obstetrics & Gynecology-a quality improvement study.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023Article
- Scoring consistency of standard patients and examiners in the developed dental objective structured clinical examination system.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Assessing students and residents: Five research-based strategies.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2023Article
- Medical school grades may predict future clinical competence.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Article
- Comparison of OSCE performance between 6- and 7-year medical school curricula in Taiwan.BMC medical education · 2022Article
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
purposeThe objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is considered to be one of the most robust methods of clinical assessment. One of its strengths lies in its ability to minimise the effects of examiner bias due to the standardisation of items and tasks for each candidate. However, OSCE examiners' assessment scores are influenced by several factors that may jeopardise the assumed objectivity of OSCEs. To better understand this phenomenon, the current review aims to determine and describe important sources of examiner bias and the factors affecting examiners' assessments.
methodsWe performed a narrative review of the medical literature using Medline. All articles meeting the selection criteria were reviewed, with salient points extracted and synthesised into a clear and comprehensive summary of the knowledge in this area.
resultsOSCE examiners' assessment scores are influenced by factors belonging to 4 different domains: examination context, examinee characteristics, examinee-examiner interactions, and examiner characteristics. These domains are composed of several factors including halo, hawk/dove and OSCE contrast effects; the examiner's gender and ethnicity; training; lifetime experience in assessing; leadership and familiarity with students; station type; and site effects.
conclusionSeveral factors may influence the presumed objectivity of examiners' assessments, and these factors need to be addressed to ensure the objectivity of OSCEs. We offer insights into directions for future research to better understand and address the phenomenon of examiner bias.
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.