4.5 Article

Online medical student OSCE examinations during the first three years of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to three years pre-pandemic: An Australian experience in psychiatry and addiction medicine

Journal

MEDICAL TEACHER
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2023.2279918

Keywords

Medical education; psychiatry; OSCE; COVID-19 pandemic; online examination

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Transitioning to online OSCEs during the pandemic was associated with an increase in scores for some domains, but not all. More research is needed to optimize teaching and examination in the post-pandemic medical school environment.
PurposeWe have evaluated the final-year Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine (PAM) summative Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) examinations in a four-year graduate medical degree program, for the previous three years as a baseline comparator, and during three years of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022).MethodsA de-identified analysis of medical student summative OSCE examination performance, and comparative review for the 3 years before, and for each year of the pandemic.ResultsInternal reliability in test scores as measured by R-squared remained the same or increased following the start of the pandemic. There was a significant increase in mean test scores after the start of the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic for combined OSCE scores for all final-year disciplines, as well as for the PAM role-play OSCEs, but not for the PAM mental state examination OSCEs.ConclusionsChanging to online OSCEs during the pandemic was related to an increase in scores for some but not all domains of the tests. This is in line with a nascent body of literature on medical teaching and examination following the start of the pandemic. Further research is needed to optimise teaching and examination in a post-pandemic medical school environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available