SynthesisNursing open2025
Psychometric Properties of Instruments Measuring Health Sciences Students' Perceptions of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
aimTo investigate the instruments used to measure students' perceptions of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in health sciences and to evaluate their methodological quality.
designA systematic review of the peer-reviewed published literature was conducted to identify, appraise, and summarize the characteristics and methodological quality of instruments developed to assess students' perceptions of the OSCE in health sciences education. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological transparency and reproducibility. The MERSQI checklist was applied to check the quality of the articles.
methodsSeven electronic databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 2014 and May 2025. Manual reference searches were also performed to capture additional relevant studies. Studies were included if they reported primary research describing the development, adaptation, or psychometric evaluation of instruments measuring students' perceptions of OSCE experiences in health sciences programs. Methodological quality was assessed using the MERSQI checklist, and studies scoring below 60 out of 100 were excluded evaluate the quality of the included studies, focusing on study design, sampling, data analysis, validity, and outcomes.
resultsA total of 1,578 records were screened, with only two studies meeting the inclusion and quality criteria. The majority of identified instruments lacked psychometric rigor, as they were author-developed questionnaires without formal reliability or validity testing. Two validated instruments were identified: the SINE-OSCA Scale and the OSCEPS. The SINE-OSCA demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, while the OSCEPS exhibited excellent internal consistency and acceptable structural validity, supporting its use for evaluating OSCE experiences.
conclusionThese findings underscore the scarcity of validated instruments and emphasize the need to test and develop psychometrically robust tools to support assessment practices in OSCE-based education. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.
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.