OBJECTIVE: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is widely used to assess the core competency of dental residents. However, the educative effect of feedback in OSCE has not been fully examined. Therefore, we investigated the educative effect of formative feedback in a medical interview station. METHODS: The subjects were 51 residents in the clinical training course of our dental hospital. After completing the medical interview station, residents were individually given formative feedback by evaluators and standardized patients. Two months later, residents were asked to fill in a questionnaire about the contents of feedback and self-rating mental strain level during OSCE. Videotaped performance and feedback were reviewed by investigators to check the answers to the questionnaire. RESULTS: Evaluators provided an average of 3.1 feedback items, and standardized patients provided an average of 1.6 feedback items for each resident. However, each resident remembered an average of 1.3 feedback items from evaluators and 0.9 from standardized patients. The lower the score of residents in the medical interview station, the more feedback items were given to residents. A significant negative correlation was found between the score of evaluators and self-rating mental strain level (Spearman rho = -0.326, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: For effective feedback, evaluators or standardized patients should focus on 2 to 3 items of essential points in OSCE. Repetition of feedback using videotaped performance may be useful to improve communication skills for medical interview.
OBJECTIVE: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is widely used to assess the core competency of dental residents. However, the educative effect of feedback in OSCE has not been fully examined. Therefore, we investigated the educative effect of formative feedback in a medical interview station. METHODS: The subjects were 51 residents in the clinical training course of our dental hospital. After completing the medical interview station, residents were individually given formative feedback by evaluators and standardized patients. Two months later, residents were asked to fill in a questionnaire about the contents of feedback and self-rating mental strain level during OSCE. Videotaped performance and feedback were reviewed by investigators to check the answers to the questionnaire. RESULTS: Evaluators provided an average of 3.1 feedback items, and standardized patients provided an average of 1.6 feedback items for each resident. However, each resident remembered an average of 1.3 feedback items from evaluators and 0.9 from standardized patients. The lower the score of residents in the medical interview station, the more feedback items were given to residents. A significant negative correlation was found between the score of evaluators and self-rating mental strain level (Spearman rho = -0.326, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: For effective feedback, evaluators or standardized patients should focus on 2 to 3 items of essential points in OSCE. Repetition of feedback using videotaped performance may be useful to improve communication skills for medical interview.