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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |