Main Article Content
Background: Assessment drives learning and improving the quality of assessment has a remarkable impact on the quality of learning. Objective Structured Clinical Examination is termed more reliable and valid as compared to conventional practical examination.
Objective: The objective of this study was to find the perception of postgraduate family medicine trainees about the OSCE assessment method and compare those having previous experience with those having no previous experience.
Methodology: This was a cross-section study conducted at the end of exit examination of diploma in family medicine at the Family Medicine Department, Khyber Medical University Peshawar. Data were collected on an eleven items questionnaire on a five-point Likert Scale. Study participants were categorized based on their previous experience of the OSCE, and were grouped into two categories. Data were analyzed by using Fisher’s Exact test and a p-value of ? 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: 56 out of 60 candidates returned completed questionnaires. The response rate was 93.33% where the majority were males 52(92.9%). Participants with experience of the OSCE were 22 (39.3%) while 34 (60.7%) were having no experience of the assessment method. There was a significant difference (p= 0.001) in the perception about the OSCE with the simulated patient than real patient, fairness and reliability of the OSCE, stress and length of the OSCE and reduction of bias in the OSCE. The perception about weightage to be given to the OSCE in any examination was significantly different (p=0.004) between the two groups.
Conclusion: Participants of both groups (experienced vs non-experienced) agreed on some aspects of the OSCE. Their opinion differed about the fairness, validity and stress related to the OSCE assessment method. This difference is probably explained by the inadequacy of an experience to form an opinion.
Keywords: Conventional practical examination, Family medicine, OSCE.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published in the Journal of Medical Sciences (JMS) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0). Under the CC BY 4.0 license, author(s) retain the ownership of the copyright publishing rights without restrictions for their content, and allow others to copy, use, print, share, modify, and distribute the content of the article even for commercial purposes as long as the original authors and the journal are properly cited. No permission is required from the author/s or the publishers for this purpose. Appropriate attribution can be provided by simply citing the original article. The corresponding author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide license to JMS and its licensees in all forms, formats, and media (whether known now or created in the future), The corresponding author must certify and warrant the authorship and proprietorship and should declare that he/she has not granted or assigned any of the article’s rights to any other person or body.
The corresponding author must compensate the journal for any costs, expenses, or damages that the JMS may incur as a result of any breach of these warranties including any intentional or unintentional errors, omissions, copyright issues, or plagiarism. The editorial office must be notified upon submission if an article contains materials like text, pictures, tables, or graphs from other copyrighted sources. The JMS reserves the right to remove any images, figures, tables, or other content, from any article, whether before or after publication, if concerns are raised about copyright, license, or permissions and the authors are unable to provide documentation confirming that appropriate permissions were obtained for publication of the content in question.