Objective structured clinical examination versus traditional written examinations: a prospective observational study

Abstract

BackgroundRecently, Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) became an official evaluation modality for 6-year medical students in France. Before, standard examination modalities were: written progressive clinical cases (PCC), written critical reading of scientific articles (CRA), and internship evaluation (IE). The aim of this study was to assess the performances of 6-year medical students in their final faculty tests by comparing OSCE-exams with standard examination modalities.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study. We included all 6-year medical students in our university from 2020 to 2021. The endpoints were the scores obtained at the following final faculty tests during the 6th year of medical studies: OSCE-training, OSCE-exams, written PCC, written CRA, and IE. All scores were compared in a paired-analysis.ResultsA total of 400 students were included in the study. No student was excluded in the final analysis. The mean scores obtained at the OSCE-exams were significantly different from those obtained at OSCE-training, PCC, CRA, and IE (12.6 ± 1.7, 11.7 ± 1.7, 13.4 ± 1.4, 13.2 ± 1.5, 14.7 ± 0.9, respectively; p < 0.001). OSCE-exams scores were moderately and significantly correlated with OSCE-training and PCC (Spearman rho coefficient = 0.4, p < 0.001); OSCE examination scores were lowly but significantly correlated with CRA and IE (Spearman rho coefficient = 0.3, p < 0.001). OSCE-scores significantly increased after an OSCE training session.ConclusionIn our faculty, 6-year medical students obtained lower scores at OSCE exams compared to other standard evaluation modalities. The correlation was weak to moderate but significant. These results suggest that OSCE are not redundant with the other evaluation modalities. Interestingly, a single OSCE training session led to an improvement in OSCE scores underlining the importance of a specific training.