ArticleBMC medical education2024
Perception of undergraduate medical students and examiners towards grand objective structured clinical examination.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Time management and academic achievement among medical students: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Dental Staff Members' Perception Regarding Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): An Experience from Saudi Arabia.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
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
backgroundThe assessment of undergraduate medical students consists of a written component and an advanced clinical competency test that evaluates the students' skills. The Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) were only implemented in most medical schools in the last ten years, similar in many developing countries. It was first used with other clinical assessment methods. This study was designed to investigate how medical students in the fourth and sixth grades and examiners perceived the unique format, features, and quality of the Grand Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (GOSCE), a novel method for assessing students. The aim was to understand how this innovative method, distinct from traditional assessment methods, prepares students for real-world scenarios where they encounter different specialty cases. Additionally, the study aimed to understand the significant role and challenges faced by the Faculty of General Medicine at Koya University in implementing this type of OSCE and to identify potential improvements to enhance the quality of the assessment process.
methodsFollowing the administration of two distinct GOSCE examinations for the fourth and sixth stages, feedback forms were created using Google Forms and distributed to students and examiners. The feedback forms covered all aspects of the examination process. The responses were then rigorously analyzed using the scientific tool SPSS, allowing for a comparison between students from both stages and the faculty and external examiners.
resultsIn the survey of 104 undergraduate students (78% of attendants), the majority (84n,80%) rated the fairness of the assessment as good, which is the primary goal of GOSCE. A large percentage (89n,85.6%) agreed that the examination covered a wide range of clinical skills. Eighty students (76.85%) believed the patients cooperated and found the findings precise; on the other hand, The obtained responses from 24 out of 33 faculty staff members (75%) and 29 out of 35 external examiners (82%) strongly agreed that the examination adequately covered a wide variety of clinical abilities. Only two of 68 examiners (2.9%) believed the examination needed more to provide a learning opportunity.
conclusionWith the insightful suggestions for improvement provided by the participants, GOSCE has a promising potential to evolve into a fair, objective clinical tool for assessing medical students, instilling a sense of optimism for its future development.
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.