ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2026
Understanding contexts and mechanisms through which video based benchmarking promotes alignment of examiners' scoring in objective structured clinical exams.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Aligning examiners judgements to a shared standard is desirable within Objective Structured Clinical Exams (OSCEs) because it accords with OSCEs' epistemic assumptions and purpose. Video-based benchmarking (VBB) involves examiners scoring station specific videos and comparing their judgements against an agreed score. Despite promising potential to enhance examiner alignment, VBB has been little researched. As the intervention's efficacy is likely influenced by context, we used Realist Evaluation to study how, why and under what circumstances VBB may aid examiner alignment. Within stimulated interviews, examiners viewed videos of year-3 student OSCE performances and received expert-panel derived benchmark information. Different participants experienced adaptations of VBB, including varying benchmark performance standards, and different timings of receiving the benchmark information. Our resulting middle range theory suggests that despite conscientious preparation with written material, examiners' expectations remain uncertain until encountering concrete performance examples. Judging a video serves this role, whilst comparison to a standard allows examiners to locate their judgement. Examiners experience dissonance when their scores are discrepant, and several contextual factors mediate whether they dismiss the suggested standard or adjust their perspectives. Examiners' degree of engagement with video observation and score reflection is critical to VBB's efficacy, and is influenced by examiner factors and other procedural contexts. These procedural contexts underpin tentative recommendations for practice which may enhance the likelihood of VBB's effectiveness. When conscientious examiners engage effectively with well-constructed benchmarks, they perceive themselves as more prepared and aligned in their judgements because comparative reflection produces adjustment to their frame of reference.
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.