ArticleBMC medical education2025
Competency development in early nursing training: a cross-sectional OSCE study of self-assessment versus examiner ratings.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of a short virtual reality training on first-attempt hand-disinfection performance in an OSCE: a randomized controlled trial.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluation of high-fidelity simulation on clinical readiness among Thai undergraduate nursing-midwifery students: a mixed-method study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Evaluating student satisfaction and self-confidence across a scaffolded simulation curriculum in undergraduate nursing education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Competency development in early nursing training: a cross-sectional OSCE study of self-assessment versus examiner ratings.BMC medical education · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate self-assessment is a core function of self-regulated learning: learners monitor their performance and adjust strategies accordingly. In nursing education, however, students often misjudge performance, especially in interpersonal communication, indicating gaps in calibration accuracy, the alignment between self- and examiner ratings. Although self-other discrepancies are reported in medicine and allied health, domain-specific patterns early in nursing training remain underexplored. We therefore examined calibration accuracy in first-year students' OSCEs across professional knowledge/analytical, methodological/procedural, and social/communication domains, and tested whether age, gender, or prior healthcare training were associated with these discrepancies.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, a complete cohort of 109 first-year nursing students undertook a standardized OSCE at the end of the second semester. The OSCE was conducted under summative assessment conditions and included stations assessing professional knowledge/analytical skills, methodological/procedural skills, and social/communication skills. Each domain was examiner-rated and self-rated immediately post-exam. Of 109 students, 102 provided complete data for analysis. Discrepancy scores (self minus examiner) were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA, paired t-tests, and linear regressions with demographic predictors.
resultsA significant interaction between rating type and competence domain was observed (η²ₚ = 0.42, p < .001). Calibration was domain-specific: Students calibrated accurately in professional knowledge and methodological skills (both ns), but strongly overestimated social/communication skills, with a large effect size (mean difference - 0.14, d = - 0.99, p < .001). Age negatively predicted overestimation in social/communication skills (R² = 0.07, p = .006), while gender and prior healthcare training showed no associations.
conclusionFirst-year nursing students calibrated well in technical and analytical skills but overestimated interpersonal communication. In SRL terms, transparent checklist criteria support monitoring, whereas implicit interpersonal standards are harder to judge. Age, rather than gender or prior healthcare training, was associated with smaller social-domain gaps. These findings align with prior work and point to interpersonal competence as a cross-disciplinary calibration challenge. Feasible, theory-aligned steps, facilitated video review against checklists, standardized vignette calibration with expert anchors, and pre- to post-feedback self-ratings, should be piloted and evaluated longitudinally before broader adoption.
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.