A pilot survey of student perceptions on the benefit of the OSCE and MCQ modalities
Müller, Stefan, Settmacher, Utz, Koch, Ines and 1 more
GMS Journal for Medical Education · 2018
doi:10.3205/zma001197 (opens in a new tab)
We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.
Abstract
Objective: The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) has become widely accepted as a form of assessment in medical education. At the same time, the more traditional multiple choice question (MCQ) examinations remain a central modality of student assessment. This pilot survey aimed to investigate students’ perceptions about the benefits of the OSCE and MCQs to yield data supporting the implementation of this assessment strategy into the national medical licensing examination in Germany.Methods: A questionnaire was delivered electronically to 34 German medical schools. Students in years 3-6 were invited to rate 11 items about objectives of good medical assessment. All items were presented for both the OSCE and MCQs using a 5-point Likert Scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Factor analysis was used to identify underlying components in the ratings. Average scores of items that belonged to a component were computed.Results: Data analysis included 1,082 students from 32 medical schools. For the OSCE, factor analysis revealed two components, which were labelled “educational impact” and “development of clinical competence”. The average scores of items were 3.37 and 3.55, respectively. For the MCQ modality, also two components emerged. These were labelled “perceived weaknesses of MCQs” and “perceived strengths of MCQs” (consisting of items such as “promotes my theoretical knowledge”). The average scores for these components were 1.85 and 3.62.Conclusion: The results of this pilot survey indicate that students consider both OSCE and MCQs as useful assessments for the purposes for which they were designed. The assessment strategy thus appears appropriate and it should be used in the national licensing examination.
Abstract licence: CC BY
References21
21 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.