Evaluation of the Utility of Online Objective Structured Clinical Examination Conducted During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to profound restrictions on the face-to-face learning and assessment in all educational institutions, particularly the medical schools. The College of Medicine and Medical Sciences of the Arabian Gulf University (CMMS-AGU) conducted the final exams, both theoretical and clinical components, for its MD students online. This study was conducted to evaluate the utility of online clinical exams held at CMMS-AGU. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, mixed method study that included samples from final year medical students, examiners, and heads of clinical departments. Data were collected through surveys, structured interviews, documents' review, and calculation of online examination's psychometrics. Descriptive statistics were used. Quantitative data were presented in the form of means and standard deviations. Responses of heads of clinical departments in the structured interview were transcribed and analyzed thematically based on three pre-established themes. Results: Quantitative and qualitative data on the utility (validity, reliability, acceptability, educational impact, and cost and feasibility) of online objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) were collected. Content validity of the online clinical examination was established through high mean scores of content representativeness, which was confirmed by the heads of clinical departments regarding the proper coverage of clinical skills. Criterion validity was established through a high correlation between clinical and theoretical exam results (r = 0.75). Reliability of the exam was established through an acceptable Cronbach's alpha value (0.70 to 0.78) over the four days of the examinations. The examinations were perceived as highly acceptable by both students and examiners. High educational impact was inferred from students' responses and review of documents. The examination was found to be feasible and of reasonable cost. Conclusion: Online OSCE might be a good alternative of conventional clinical assessments in times of crises and impossibility of having in-person contact between students, examiners, and patients. An important major drawback is still present in such initiatives, which is the inability to assess students' physical examination skills.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".