ArticleBMC medical education2024
Impact of gender on self-assessment accuracy among fourth-year French medical students on faculty's online Objective Structured Clinical Examinations.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Under pressure - a sensor-based analysis of simulated prehospital pressure dressing application for hemorrhage management.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Observational
- Manual dexterity and self-perceived skill as predictors of performance in dental skills assessments: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Metacognitive awareness and confidence as predictors of academic performance in pharmacy students: insights from grade predictions and structural equation modeling.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Competency development in early nursing training: a cross-sectional OSCE study of self-assessment versus examiner ratings.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Overestimating the Self, Outranking the Group: An Experimental Study of Overconfidence Biases in Young Decision-Makers.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHistorically, women have been shown to underestimate their abilities, while men often assess themselves more accurately or overestimate. This study aims to determine self-assessment accuracy during online Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) according to gender.
methodsA prospective study was conducted among fourth-year medical students at Paris Cité University during faculty training OSCEs, utilizing Zoom® software for remote participation. Students and evaluators assessed performances using 5-point Likert scales for medical knowledge, interpersonal skills, and overall performance. Additionally, students predicted their grade out of twenty. The assessment covered three independent stations.
resultsThis study included 259 medical students (177 women, 81 men, one non-binary (excluded from further analyses)) evaluated by 130 physicians. Evaluator scores did not differ according to students' gender (total score out of 20: men: 10.25 ± 3.45, women: 10.23 ± 3.44 p = 0.817) nor students' self-assessments (total score out of 20: men: 11.22 ± 3.02, women: 11.00 ± 3.03; p = 0.466) whatever the domains and stations (all p > 0.05). The difference (delta) between self-assessment and evaluator scores for medical knowledge (men: 0.73 ± 1.00, women: 0.64 ± 1.02; p = 0.296), interpersonal skills (men: 1.02 ± 1.06, women: 0.93 ± 1.09; p = 0.296), and total score (men: 0.98 ± 3.41, women: 0.68 ± 3.42; p = 0.296) showed no gender differences. Further analysis categorized students based on their self-assessment accuracy, revealing that both men and women displayed a high ratio of accurate self-assessments (78.1% for overall performance across all stations), with minimal overestimation observed in both genders (20.9% for overall performance across all stations). Instances of overestimation or underestimation were rare and not consistent over the 3 stations, indicating that such misjudgments are likely situational rather than inherent traits. DISCUSSION: This study reveals similar self-assessment accuracy according to gender in online training OSCEs suggesting a shift towards gender-equitable self-perceptions among medical students compared to previous studies. Research remains necessary to corroborate these results and explore the underlying factors contributing to this shift in self-perception.
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.