Article Sidebar
Published:
May 21, 2020DOI:
10.4314/aas.v17i2.3Keywords:
Article Details
Authors submitting articles to The Annals of African Surgery do so on the understanding that if accepted, they will retain the copyright and allow the journal to publish and archive the article under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on the Creative commons website. All authors will be required to sign an Author Agreement form detailing the agreement with the journal prior to the article being published. Download the form here
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Main Article Content
Objective Structured Clinical Examination Tests: Comparison with Traditional Clinical Examinations in Surgery
Abstract
Background: Examination methods change over time, and audits are useful for quality assurance and improvement. Objective: Comparison of traditional clinical test and objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in a department of surgery.
Methods: Examination records of results of the fifth year MBChB examinations for 2012–2013 (traditional) and 2014–2015 (OSCE) were analyzed. Using 50% as the pre-agreed pass mark, the pass rate for the clinical examinations in each year was calculated and these figures were subjected to t-test to determine any significant differences in each year and in type of clinical test. P value of <0.05 determined significant statistical differences in the test score.
Results: We analyzed 1178 results; most (55.6%) did OSCE. The average clinical scores examinations were 59.7% for traditional vs 60.1% for OSCE examination; basic surgical skills were positively skewed.
Conclusion: OSCE in the same setting of teaching and examiners may give more marks than the traditional clinical examination, but it is better at detecting areas of inadequacies for emphasis in teaching.
Keywords: Clinical examination, Traditional, OSCE, Comparison
