ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2025
Leveraging feedback mechanisms to improve the quality of objective structured clinical examinations in Singapore: an exploratory action research study.
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeVariability in examiner scoring threatens the fairness and reliability of objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). While examiner standardization exists, there is currently no structured, psychometric-informed, individualized feedback mechanism for examiners. This study explored the feasibility and perceived value of such a mechanism using an action research approach to co-design and iteratively refine examiner feedback reports.
methodsTwo exploratory cycles were conducted between November 2023 and June 2024 with phase 4 OSCE examiners at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine. In cycle 1, psychometric analyses of examiner scoring for a phase 4 OSCE informed the design of individualized reports, which were evaluated through interviews. Revisions were made to the format of the report and implemented in cycle 2, where examiner responses were again collected. Data were analyzed thematically, supported by reflective logs and field notes.
resultsNine examiners participated in cycle 1 and 7 in cycle 2. In cycle 1, examiners highlighted challenges in interpreting complex terminology, leading to report refinements such as glossaries and visual graphs. In cycle 2, examiners demonstrated greater confidence in applying feedback, requested longitudinal reports, and shifted from initial resistance to reflective engagement. Across cycles, the reports improved credibility, neutrality, and examiner self-regulation.
conclusionThis exploratory study suggests that psychometric-informed feedback reports can facilitate examiner reflection and transparency in OSCEs. While the findings highlight feasibility and examiner acceptance, longitudinal delivery of feedback, collection of quantitative outcome data, and larger samples are needed to establish whether such reports improve scoring consistency and assessment fairness.
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.