PURPOSE: The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is considered to be one of the most robust methods of clinical assessment. One of its strengths lies in its ability to minimise the effects of examiner bias due to the standardisation of items and tasks for each candidate. However, OSCE examiners' assessment scores are influenced by several factors that may jeopardise the assumed objectivity of OSCEs. To better understand this phenomenon, the current review aims to determine and describe important sources of examiner bias and the factors affecting examiners' assessments. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of the medical literature using Medline. All articles meeting the selection criteria were reviewed, with salient points extracted and synthesised into a clear and comprehensive summary of the knowledge in this area. RESULTS: OSCE examiners' assessment scores are influenced by factors belonging to 4 different domains: examination context, examinee characteristics, examinee-examiner interactions, and examiner characteristics. These domains are composed of several factors including halo, hawk/dove and OSCE contrast effects; the examiner's gender and ethnicity; training; lifetime experience in assessing; leadership and familiarity with students; station type; and site effects. CONCLUSION: Several factors may influence the presumed objectivity of examiners' assessments, and these factors need to be addressed to ensure the objectivity of OSCEs. We offer insights into directions for future research to better understand and address the phenomenon of examiner bias.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Humans ; Leadership ; Patient Selection ; Problem Solving ; Recognition (Psychology)

PURPOSE: The biases that may influence objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scoring are well understood, and recent research has attempted to establish the magnitude of their impact. However, the influence of examiner experience, clinical seniority, and occupation on communication and physical examination scores in OSCEs has not yet been clearly established. METHODS: We compared the mean scores awarded for generic and clinical communication and physical examination skills in 2 undergraduate medicine OSCEs in relation to examiner characteristics (gender, examining experience, occupation, seniority, and speciality). The statistical significance of the differences was calculated using the 2-tailed independent t-test and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventeen students were examined by 237 examiners at the University of New South Wales in 2014 and 2016. Examiner gender, occupation (academic, clinician, or clinical tutor), and job type (specialist or generalist) did not significantly impact scores. Junior doctors gave consistently higher scores than senior doctors in all domains, and this difference was statistically significant for generic and clinical communication scores. Examiner experience was significantly inversely correlated with generic communication scores. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the assessment of examination skills may be less susceptible to bias because this process is fairly prescriptive, affording greater scoring objectivity. We recommend training to define the marking criteria, teaching curriculum, and expected level of performance in communication skills to reduce bias in OSCE assessment.
Australia ; Awards and Prizes ; Bias (Epidemiology) ; Curriculum ; Humans ; New South Wales ; Occupations ; Physical Examination

PURPOSE: The biases that may influence objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scoring are well understood, and recent research has attempted to establish the magnitude of their impact. However, the influence of examiner experience, clinical seniority, and occupation on communication and physical examination scores in OSCEs has not yet been clearly established. METHODS: We compared the mean scores awarded for generic and clinical communication and physical examination skills in 2 undergraduate medicine OSCEs in relation to examiner characteristics (gender, examining experience, occupation, seniority, and speciality). The statistical significance of the differences was calculated using the 2-tailed independent t-test and analysis of variance. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventeen students were examined by 237 examiners at the University of New South Wales in 2014 and 2016. Examiner gender, occupation (academic, clinician, or clinical tutor), and job type (specialist or generalist) did not significantly impact scores. Junior doctors gave consistently higher scores than senior doctors in all domains, and this difference was statistically significant for generic and clinical communication scores. Examiner experience was significantly inversely correlated with generic communication scores. CONCLUSION We suggest that the assessment of examination skills may be less susceptible to bias because this process is fairly prescriptive, affording greater scoring objectivity. We recommend training to define the marking criteria, teaching curriculum, and expected level of performance in communication skills to reduce bias in OSCE assessment.

Purpose: In contemporary pharmacy, the role of pharmacists has become more multifaceted, as they now handle a wider range of tasks and take more responsibility for providing patient care than 20 years ago. This evolution in pharmacists’ responsibilities has been accompanied by the need for pharmacists to display high-quality patient-centred care and counselling, and to demonstrate professionalism, which now needs to be taught and assessed as part of pharmacy education and practice. This study aimed at identifying definitions of professionalism in pharmacy practice and critically evaluating published instruments for assessing professionalism in pharmacy practice. Methods: We searched the medical literature listed in Scopus, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2018. All papers meeting our selection criteria were reviewed and summarised into a clear review of professionalism requirements in pharmacy practice. Details of the instruments measuring professionalism were reviewed in detail. Results: There is no accepted simple definition of professionalism, although we identified several theoretical and policy frameworks required for professional pharmaceutical practice. We identified 4 instruments (the Behavioural Professionalism Assessment Instrument, Lerkiatbundit’s instrument, the Pharmacy Professionalism Instrument, and the Professionalism Assessment Tool that build on these frameworks and measure professional practice in pharmacy students. These were found to be reliable and valid, but had only been used and tested in student populations. Conclusion Given the increasingly broad role of community pharmacists, there is a need for assessments of professionalism in practice. Professionalism is a complex concept that is challenging to measure because it has no standardised definition and the existing literature related to the topic is limited. Currently available instruments focus on measuring the development of the elements of professionalism among pharmacy students, rather than pharmacists.