Observational studyJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2021
Empirical analysis comparing the tele-objective structured clinical examination (teleOSCE) and the in-person assessment in Australia.
Observational study in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2021. 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.
- Feasibility and reliability of the pandemic-adapted online-onsite hybrid graduation OSCE in Japan.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024Article
- The impact of COVID-19 on medical students.GMS journal for medical education · 2024Review
- Radiography education in 2022 and beyond - Writing the history of the present: A narrative review.Radiography (London, England : 1995) · 2023Review
- Newly appointed medical faculty members’ self-evaluation of their educational roles at the Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine in 2020 and 2021: a cross-sectional survey-based study.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2021Article
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
purposeIt aimed to compare the use of the tele objective structured clinical examination (teleOSCE) with in-person assessment in high-stakes clinical examination so as to determine the impact of the teleOSCE on the assessment undertaken. Discussion follows regarding what skills and domains can effectively be assessed in a teleOSCE.
methodsThis study is a retrospective observational analysis. It compares the results achieved by final year medical students in their clinical examination, assessed using the teleOSCE in 2020 (n=285), with those who were examined using the traditional in-person format in 2019 (n=280). The study was undertaken at the University of New South Wales, Australia.
resultsIn the domain of physical examination, students in 2020 scored 0.277 points higher than those in 2019 (mean difference -0.277, P<0.001, effect size 0.332). Across all other domains, there was no significant difference in mean scores between 2019 and 2020.
conclusionThe teleOSCE does not negatively impact assessment in clinical examination in all domains except physical examination. If the teleOSCE is the future of clinical skills examination, assessment of physical examination will require concomitant workplace-based assessment.
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.