Feedback of undergraduate nursing students about objective structured practical examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : An essential part of a nursing curriculum is an accurate clinical assessment of nursing students’ skills. The objective structured practical examination (OSPE) is the modified version of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) used for a summative assessment of practical knowledge and skills in nursing education. Aim: The current study was undertaken to evaluate the performance and feedback of undergraduate nursing students about OSPE. Methods : A cross sectional study design was carried out on the students who participated in the OSPE, which was done at the Faculty of Nursing, Tanta University, Egypt. The study included students enrolled in fundamental, medical surgical, critical care nursing, obstetric, and pediatric nursing course. 100 students from each branch were asked to fill structured questionnaire after OSPE. Results : Overall there were no significant differences in the mean score of students' opinion in relation to the structure and format of examination, conduct of examination, and evaluation of examination compared with the four departments (pediatric, obstetric, fundamental, medical surgical and critical care nursing) ( p = 1.000). Conclusions : Students in pediatric, obstetric, fundamental, medical surgical and critical care nursing departments preferred OSPE for evaluating clinical skills and perceived it as more organized, objective, structure, valid, and less anxious. Student’s feedback was invaluable regarding need more time at each station. Also, students argued several suggestions for enhancing quality of OSPE in assessing process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".