A Comparative Analysis of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) and Traditional Written Exams in Medical Education for Assessing Clinical Competence.

Objective This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of traditional written examinations and Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) in assessing clinical competence among medical students. Additionally, it sought to explore the practical challenges and opportunities of integrating OSCEs into undergraduate curricula, evaluate the validity and reliability of both assessment methods, and propose a standardized framework to support consistent and objective evaluation. Methodology A total of 120 phase III part II Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) students were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups. Group A was assessed using traditional long-case written examinations, while group B underwent OSCEs. Feedback from students and examiners was collected using a pre-designed questionnaire evaluating clarity, fairness, anxiety levels, and the ability to demonstrate clinical skills effectively. Results The mean total score in group A was 62.02 ± 5.82, whereas group B achieved a significantly higher mean score of 75.63 ± 5.28 (p=0.0001), indicating superior performance in the OSCE group. Examiners reported that the OSCE was feasible and sustainable, and that it provided a more objective assessment of clinical competence. Conclusions The OSCE meets nearly all criteria for an ideal clinical competency assessment. Its structured, objective, and reliable design makes it highly suitable for evaluating clinical skills. Given its demonstrated effectiveness and practicality, the OSCE can be adopted as a standard evaluation method across diverse clinical disciplines.