J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2019;16:14. 10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.14.

No observed effect of a student-led mock objective structured clinical examination on subsequent performance scores in medical students in Canada

• Madrazo L
• Lee CB
• McConnell M
• Khamisa K
• Pugh D

• KMID: 2502184
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.14

Abstract

Student-led peer-assisted mock objective structured clinical examinations (MOSCEs) have been used in various settings to help students prepare for subsequent higher-stakes, faculty-run OSCEs. MOSCE participants generally valued feedback from peers and reported benefits to learning. Our study investigated whether participation in a peer-assisted MOSCE affected subsequent OSCE performance. To determine whether mean OSCE scores differed depending on whether medical students participated in the MOSCE, we conducted a between-subjects analysis of variance, with cohort (2016 vs. 2017) and MOSCE participation (MOSCE vs. no MOSCE) as independent variables and the mean OSCE score as the dependent variable. Participation in the MOSCE had no influence on mean OSCE scores (P=0.19). There was a significant correlation between mean MOSCE scores and mean OSCE scores (Pearson r=0.52, P<0.001). Although previous studies described self-reported benefits from participation in student-led MOSCEs, it was not associated with objective benefits in this study.

Keyword

Physical examination; Educational measurement; Medical education; Medical students; Canada

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Comparison of mean OSCE scores between MOSCE participants and non-MOSCE participants. OSCE, objective structural clinical examination; MOSCE, mock OSCE.

Reference

References

1. Slomer A, Chenkin J. Does test-enhanced learning improve success rates of ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous insertion?: a randomized controlled trial. AEM Educ Train. 2017; 1:310–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10044.

2. Pugh D, Desjardins I, Eva K. How do formative objective structured clinical examinations drive learning?: analysis of residents’ perceptions. Med Teach. 2018; 40:45–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1388502.

3. Khan R, Payne MW, Chahine S. Peer assessment in the objective structured clinical examination: a scoping review. Med Teach. 2017; 39:745–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1309375.

4. Lee CB, Madrazo L, Khan U, Thangarasa T, McConnell M, Khamisa K. A student-initiated objective structured clinical examination as a sustainable cost-effective learning experience. Med Educ Online. 2018; 23:1440111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2018.1440111.

5. Khamisa K, Halman S, Desjardins I, Jean MS, Pugh D. The implementation and evaluation of an e-Learning training module for objective structured clinical examination raters in Canada. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2018; 15:18. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2018.15.18.

6. Medical Council of Canada. Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination part II [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Medical Council of Canada;2018. [cited 2018 Jun 8]. Available from:https://mcc.ca/examinations/mccqe-part-ii/.

7. Humphrey-Murto S, Mihok M, Pugh D, Touchie C, Halman S, Wood TJ. Feedback in the OSCE: what do residents remember? Teach Learn Med. 2016; 28:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2015.1107487.