ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Medical students' perception of the OSCE: development and validation of an instrument to assess formative and summative modalities.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop, validate, and apply an instrument aimed at assessing medical students' perceptions of the impact of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), both in its peer-based formative and traditional summative modalities, on clinical learning.
methodsThis study used a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach. The instrument development was preceded by a literature review. Content validation was conducted by specialists through an OSCE using Pasquali's psychometric criteria (clarity, relevance, and pertinence). A pre-test with students enabled semantic and structural adjustments through triangulation with experts. For reliability, the Content Validity Coefficient and exploratory factor analysis were applied to the responses of fifth- and sixth-year students.
resultsThe final instrument included 22 items in three sections. All items had content validity coefficients equal to or greater than 0.80. The expert evaluations yielded coefficients of 0.924 for clarity, 0.925 for pertinence, and 0.945 for relevance. Target audience validation showed similarly high scores. Exploratory factor analysis of 96 medical students confirmed a unidimensional structure for both the formative and summative versions of the OSCE. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin index ranged from 0.91 to 0.93, and the Bartlett's test was significant (p<0.001). Factor loadings ranged from 0.75 to 0.98, explaining 77% of the variance. The internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's alpha=0.97).
conclusionThis study developed a validated, reliable, and innovative instrument to assess students' perceptions of the OSCE in health 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.