ArticleHNO2026
[Competence-oriented assessment: the structured oral examination].
Article in HNO, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Assessment consistency in special care dentistry: an exploratory study of structured oral examinations.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
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
backgroundStructured oral examinations (SOEs) are valid instruments to assess applied knowledge and reasoning skills (competency level 2). They bridge the gap between written examinations focusing on factual knowledge (level 1) and practical formats such as objective structured clinical evaluations (OSCEs) assessing performance skills (from level 3). Through standardized case vignettes, checklists, and defined scoring criteria, SOEs offer potential for enhanced objectivity, reliability, and comparability.
objectiveUsing pure tone audiometry (PTA) and rhinomanometry (RMM) as examples, this study examined the feasibility, psychometric quality (internal consistency, item discrimination, factor analysis), and examiner effects of an SOE designed according to the Nationaler Kompetenzbasierter Lernzielkatalog Medizin (NKLM), competency level 2.
methodsWithin the curricular ENT teaching program, PTA (n = 217) and RMM (n = 190) were taught and subsequently assessed in an SOE. Five categories were rated (identification, performance, description, interpretation, and differential diagnosis; maximum 27 points), with point deductions for examiner assistance. Eight medical examiners conducted the exams in a 1:1 setting. Descriptive statistics and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to analyze examiner differences.
resultsThe mean total score was 25.20 ± 1.94 for PTA and 24.84 ± 1.94 for RMM. The highest scores were obtained for identification and performance, the lowest for description (PTA) and interpretation (RMM). Significant examiner differences were found for PTA (p = 0.001) but not for RMM (p = 0.078).
conclusionThe SOE proved to be a feasible and reliable format for assessing applied knowledge and reasoning. The observed examiner differences highlight the need for examiner training, calibration, and standardized scoring instruments. Structured oral examinations can substantially contribute to implementing competency-based assessment in medical education.
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.