Feedback has been shown to be an important driver for learning. However, many factors, such as the emotional reactions feedback evokes, may impact its effect. This study aimed to explore medical students’ perspectives on the verbal feedback they receive during an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE); their emotional reaction to this; and its impact on their subsequent performance. To do this, medical students enrolled at 4 Canadian medical schools were invited to complete a web-based survey regarding their experiences. One hundred and fifty-eight participants completed the survey. Twenty-nine percent of respondents asserted that they had experienced emotional reactions to verbal feedback received in an OSCE setting. The most common emotional responses reported were embarrassment and anxiousness. Some students (n=20) reported that the feedback they received negatively impacted subsequent OSCE performance. This study demonstrates that feedback provided during an OSCE can evoke an emotional response in students and potentially impact subsequent performance.

Student-led peer-assisted mock objective structured clinical examinations (MOSCEs) have been used in various settings to help students prepare for subsequent higher-stakes, faculty-run OSCEs. MOSCE participants generally valued feedback from peers and reported benefits to learning. Our study investigated whether participation in a peer-assisted MOSCE affected subsequent OSCE performance. To determine whether mean OSCE scores differed depending on whether medical students participated in the MOSCE, we conducted a between-subjects analysis of variance, with cohort (2016 vs. 2017) and MOSCE participation (MOSCE vs. no MOSCE) as independent variables and the mean OSCE score as the dependent variable. Participation in the MOSCE had no influence on mean OSCE scores (P=0.19). There was a significant correlation between mean MOSCE scores and mean OSCE scores (Pearson r=0.52, P<0.001). Although previous studies described self-reported benefits from participation in student-led MOSCEs, it was not associated with objective benefits in this study.

Improving the reliability and consistency of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) raters’ marking poses a continual challenge in medical education. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an e-Learning training module for OSCE raters who participated in the assessment of third-year medical students at the University of Ottawa, Canada. The effects of online training and those of traditional in-person (face-to-face) orientation were compared. Of the 90 physicians recruited as raters for this OSCE, 60 consented to participate (67.7%) in the study in March 2017. Of the 60 participants, 55 rated students during the OSCE, while the remaining 5 were back-up raters. The number of raters in the online training group was 41, while that in the traditional in-person training group was 19. Of those with prior OSCE experience (n=18) who participated in the online group, 13 (68%) reported that they preferred this format to the in-person orientation. The total average time needed to complete the online module was 15 minutes. Furthermore, 89% of the participants felt the module provided clarity in the rater training process. There was no significant difference in the number of missing ratings based on the type of orientation that raters received. Our study indicates that online OSCE rater training is comparable to traditional face-to-face orientation.
Canada ; Clinical Clerkship ; Education, Medical ; Education, Medical, Undergraduate ; Educational Measurement ; Humans ; Students, Medical

Improving the reliability and consistency of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) raters’ marking poses a continual challenge in medical education. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an e-Learning training module for OSCE raters who participated in the assessment of third-year medical students at the University of Ottawa, Canada. The effects of online training and those of traditional in-person (face-to-face) orientation were compared. Of the 90 physicians recruited as raters for this OSCE, 60 consented to participate (67.7%) in the study in March 2017. Of the 60 participants, 55 rated students during the OSCE, while the remaining 5 were back-up raters. The number of raters in the online training group was 41, while that in the traditional in-person training group was 19. Of those with prior OSCE experience (n=18) who participated in the online group, 13 (68%) reported that they preferred this format to the in-person orientation. The total average time needed to complete the online module was 15 minutes. Furthermore, 89% of the participants felt the module provided clarity in the rater training process. There was no significant difference in the number of missing ratings based on the type of orientation that raters received. Our study indicates that online OSCE rater training is comparable to traditional face-to-face orientation.