Cargando…

Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback

BACKGROUND: The Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) is a useful means of generating meaningful feedback. OSCE feedback may be in various forms (written, face to face and audio or video recordings). Studies on OSCE feedback are uncommon, especially involving Asian medical students. METHODS: We...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ngim, Chin Fang, Fullerton, Paul Douglas, Ratnasingam, Vanassa, Arasoo, Valliammai Jayanthi Thirunavuk, Dominic, Nisha Angela, Niap, Cindy Pei Sze, Thurairajasingam, Sivakumar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02585-z
_version_ 1783669452181602304
author Ngim, Chin Fang
Fullerton, Paul Douglas
Ratnasingam, Vanassa
Arasoo, Valliammai Jayanthi Thirunavuk
Dominic, Nisha Angela
Niap, Cindy Pei Sze
Thurairajasingam, Sivakumar
author_facet Ngim, Chin Fang
Fullerton, Paul Douglas
Ratnasingam, Vanassa
Arasoo, Valliammai Jayanthi Thirunavuk
Dominic, Nisha Angela
Niap, Cindy Pei Sze
Thurairajasingam, Sivakumar
author_sort Ngim, Chin Fang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) is a useful means of generating meaningful feedback. OSCE feedback may be in various forms (written, face to face and audio or video recordings). Studies on OSCE feedback are uncommon, especially involving Asian medical students. METHODS: We compared two methods of OSCE feedback delivered to fourth year medical students in Malaysia: (i) Face to face (FTF) immediate feedback (semester one) (ii) Individualised enhanced written (EW) feedback containing detailed scores in each domain, examiners’ free text comments and the marking rubric (semester two). Both methods were evaluated by students and staff examiners, and students’ responses were compared against their OSCE performance. RESULTS: Of the 116 students who sat for both formative OSCEs, 82.8% (n=96) and 86.2% (n=100) responded to the first and second survey respectively. Most students were comfortable to receive feedback (91.3% in FTF, 96% in EW) with EW feedback associated with higher comfort levels (p=0.022). Distress affected a small number with no differences between either method (13.5% in FTF, 10% in EW, p=0.316). Most students perceived both types of feedback improved their performance (89.6% in FTF, 95% in EW); this perception was significantly stronger for EW feedback (p=0.008). Students who preferred EW feedback had lower OSCE scores compared to those preferring FTF feedback (mean scores ± SD: 43.8 ± 5.3 in EW, 47.2 ± 6.5 in FTF, p=0.049). Students ranked the “marking rubric” to be the most valuable aspect of the EW feedback. Tutors felt both methods of feedback were equally beneficial. Few examiners felt they needed training (21.4% in FTF, 15% in EW) but students perceived this need for tutors’ training differently (53.1% in FTF, 46% in EW) CONCLUSION: Whilst both methods of OSCE feedback were highly valued, students preferred to receive EW feedback and felt it was more beneficial. Learning cultures of Malaysian students may have influenced this view. Information provided in EW feedback should be tailored accordingly to provide meaningful feedback in OSCE exams. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-021-02585-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7992790
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79927902021-03-25 Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback Ngim, Chin Fang Fullerton, Paul Douglas Ratnasingam, Vanassa Arasoo, Valliammai Jayanthi Thirunavuk Dominic, Nisha Angela Niap, Cindy Pei Sze Thurairajasingam, Sivakumar BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: The Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) is a useful means of generating meaningful feedback. OSCE feedback may be in various forms (written, face to face and audio or video recordings). Studies on OSCE feedback are uncommon, especially involving Asian medical students. METHODS: We compared two methods of OSCE feedback delivered to fourth year medical students in Malaysia: (i) Face to face (FTF) immediate feedback (semester one) (ii) Individualised enhanced written (EW) feedback containing detailed scores in each domain, examiners’ free text comments and the marking rubric (semester two). Both methods were evaluated by students and staff examiners, and students’ responses were compared against their OSCE performance. RESULTS: Of the 116 students who sat for both formative OSCEs, 82.8% (n=96) and 86.2% (n=100) responded to the first and second survey respectively. Most students were comfortable to receive feedback (91.3% in FTF, 96% in EW) with EW feedback associated with higher comfort levels (p=0.022). Distress affected a small number with no differences between either method (13.5% in FTF, 10% in EW, p=0.316). Most students perceived both types of feedback improved their performance (89.6% in FTF, 95% in EW); this perception was significantly stronger for EW feedback (p=0.008). Students who preferred EW feedback had lower OSCE scores compared to those preferring FTF feedback (mean scores ± SD: 43.8 ± 5.3 in EW, 47.2 ± 6.5 in FTF, p=0.049). Students ranked the “marking rubric” to be the most valuable aspect of the EW feedback. Tutors felt both methods of feedback were equally beneficial. Few examiners felt they needed training (21.4% in FTF, 15% in EW) but students perceived this need for tutors’ training differently (53.1% in FTF, 46% in EW) CONCLUSION: Whilst both methods of OSCE feedback were highly valued, students preferred to receive EW feedback and felt it was more beneficial. Learning cultures of Malaysian students may have influenced this view. Information provided in EW feedback should be tailored accordingly to provide meaningful feedback in OSCE exams. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-021-02585-z. BioMed Central 2021-03-24 /pmc/articles/PMC7992790/ /pubmed/33761946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02585-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ngim, Chin Fang
Fullerton, Paul Douglas
Ratnasingam, Vanassa
Arasoo, Valliammai Jayanthi Thirunavuk
Dominic, Nisha Angela
Niap, Cindy Pei Sze
Thurairajasingam, Sivakumar
Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback
title Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback
title_full Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback
title_fullStr Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback
title_full_unstemmed Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback
title_short Feedback after OSCE: A comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback
title_sort feedback after osce: a comparison of face to face versus an enhanced written feedback
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7992790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33761946
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02585-z
work_keys_str_mv AT ngimchinfang feedbackafterosceacomparisonoffacetofaceversusanenhancedwrittenfeedback
AT fullertonpauldouglas feedbackafterosceacomparisonoffacetofaceversusanenhancedwrittenfeedback
AT ratnasingamvanassa feedbackafterosceacomparisonoffacetofaceversusanenhancedwrittenfeedback
AT arasoovalliammaijayanthithirunavuk feedbackafterosceacomparisonoffacetofaceversusanenhancedwrittenfeedback
AT dominicnishaangela feedbackafterosceacomparisonoffacetofaceversusanenhancedwrittenfeedback
AT niapcindypeisze feedbackafterosceacomparisonoffacetofaceversusanenhancedwrittenfeedback
AT thurairajasingamsivakumar feedbackafterosceacomparisonoffacetofaceversusanenhancedwrittenfeedback