OBJECTIVES: Currently, a 'pedagogical gap' exists in distributed medical education in that distance educators teach medical students but typically do not have the opportunity to assess them in large-scale examinations such as the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). We developed a remote examiner OSCE (reOSCE) that was integrated into a traditional OSCE to establish whether remote examination technology may be used to bridge this gap. The purpose of this study was to explore whether remote physician-examiners can replace on-site physician-examiners in an OSCE, and to determine the feasibility of this new examination method. METHODS:Forty Year 3 medical students were randomised into six reOSCE stations that were incorporated into two tracks of a 10-station traditional OSCE. For the reOSCE stations, student performance was assessed by both a local examiner (LE) in the room and a remote examiner (RE) who viewed the OSCE encounters from a distance. The primary endpoint was the correlation of scores between LEs and REs across all reOSCE stations. The secondary endpoint was a post-OSCE survey of both REs and students. RESULTS: Statistically significant correlations were found between LE and RE checklist scores for history taking (r = 0.64-r = 0.80), physical examination (r = 0.41-r = 0.54), and management stations (r = 0.78). Correlations between LE and RE global ratings were more varied (r = 0.21-r = 0.77). Correlations on three of the six stations reached significance. Qualitative analysis of feedback from REs and students showed high acceptance of the reOSCE despite technological issues. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrated that OSCE ratings by LEs and REs were reasonably comparable when using checklists. Remote examination may be a feasible and acceptable way of assessing students' clinical skills, but further validity evidence will be required before it can be recommended for use in high-stakes examinations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Currently, a 'pedagogical gap' exists in distributed medical education in that distance educators teach medical students but typically do not have the opportunity to assess them in large-scale examinations such as the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). We developed a remote examiner OSCE (reOSCE) that was integrated into a traditional OSCE to establish whether remote examination technology may be used to bridge this gap. The purpose of this study was to explore whether remote physician-examiners can replace on-site physician-examiners in an OSCE, and to determine the feasibility of this new examination method. METHODS: Forty Year 3 medical students were randomised into six reOSCE stations that were incorporated into two tracks of a 10-station traditional OSCE. For the reOSCE stations, student performance was assessed by both a local examiner (LE) in the room and a remote examiner (RE) who viewed the OSCE encounters from a distance. The primary endpoint was the correlation of scores between LEs and REs across all reOSCE stations. The secondary endpoint was a post-OSCE survey of both REs and students. RESULTS: Statistically significant correlations were found between LE and RE checklist scores for history taking (r = 0.64-r = 0.80), physical examination (r = 0.41-r = 0.54), and management stations (r = 0.78). Correlations between LE and RE global ratings were more varied (r = 0.21-r = 0.77). Correlations on three of the six stations reached significance. Qualitative analysis of feedback from REs and students showed high acceptance of the reOSCE despite technological issues. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study demonstrated that OSCE ratings by LEs and REs were reasonably comparable when using checklists. Remote examination may be a feasible and acceptable way of assessing students' clinical skills, but further validity evidence will be required before it can be recommended for use in high-stakes examinations.
Authors: S Heide; R Lessig; V Hachmann; D Stiller; M Rönsch; D Stoevesandt; A Biolik; S Watzke; J Kellner Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Payel Roy; Angela H Jackson; Jeffrey Baxter; Belle Brett; Michael Winter; Ilana Hardesty; Daniel P Alford Journal: Pain Med Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.750