Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41444563›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Competency development in early nursing training: a cross-sectional OSCE study of self-assessment versus examiner ratings.

Benjamin Roszipal, Gabriella Szelesi, Martin Ernst, Alexander Hoffelner, Michael Wagner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Benjamin RoszipalInstitute of Health Sciences, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Social and Health Sciences, USTP - University of Applied Sciences St. Pölten, Sankt Pölten, Austria. Benjamin.roszipal@ustp.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4276-9507
Gabriella SzelesiDepartment Healthcare and Nursing, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, USTP - University of Applied Sciences St. Pölten, Sankt Pölten, Austria.
Martin ErnstCenter for Digital Health and Social Innovations, Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, USTP - University of Applied Sciences St. Pölten, Sankt Pölten, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1075-6285
Alexander HoffelnerDivision of Neonatology, Pediatric Intensive Care and Neuropediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Comprehensive Center for Pediatrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Michael WagnerDivision of Neonatology, Pediatric Intensive Care and Neuropediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Comprehensive Center for Pediatrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0982-2310

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementEducation, Nursing, BaccalaureateSelf-AssessmentStudents, NursingAdultCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41444563
PMCPMC12729171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.