Orellano C, Huerta-Mercado J

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 46-50
PDF size: 209.84 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: One of the difficulties of the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is the management of assessment data. Objective: Describe the use of electronic evaluation in our first two OSCEs with the available technology in the School of Medicine at Cayetano Heredia Peruvian University. Material and methods: Moodle platform was utilized to create electronic rubrics. The evaluators received training in its use. In the first OSCE, laptops were placed at each station to do electronic evaluation via Wi-Fi. For the second OSCE, the technological difficulties occurred in the first were corrected and the occurrence of new problems would be identified. Results: Evaluation data was managed according to the information security triad and there were no technical problems that forced the first OSCE to stop. All electronic rubrics were completed and evaluators coincided with easy use of them. However, there were difficulties with the reported grades and possibly the use of laptops could interfere with student concentration. For the second OSCE, the way of filling the rubrics was corrected and tablets were used. In the absence of new problems with information management, this method of work was considered acceptable for future OSCE. Conclusions: It was possible to adapt the available technological resources to manage the evaluations in the OSCE.

REFERENCES

1. Khan KZ, Ramachandran S, Gaunt K, Pushkar P. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): AMEE Guide No. 81. Part I: an historical and theoretical perspective. Med Teach. 2013; 35 (9): e1437-1446.

2. Zabar S, Kachur EK, Kalet A, Hanley K. Objective structured clinical examinations: 10 steps to planning and implementing OSCEs and other standardized patient exercises. New York: Springer; 2013, p. 92.

3. Ellaway R, Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education Part 1: Learning, teaching and assessment. Med Teach. 2008; 30 (5): 455-473.

4. Schmidts MB. OSCE logistics--handheld computers replace checklists and provide automated feedback. Objective structured clinical examination. Med Educ. 2000; 34 (11): 957-958.

5. Treadwell I. The usability of personal digital assistants (PDAs) for assessment of practical performance. Med Educ. 2006; 40 (9): 855-861.

6. Orellano C. Uso de los espacios virtuales para la docencia en cursos de pregrado de medicina. Rev Medica Hered. 2012; 23 (3): 188.

7. Khan KZ, Gaunt K, Ramachandran S, Pushkar P. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): AMEE Guide No. 81. Part II: organisation & administration. Med Teach. 2013; 35 (9): e1447-1463.

8. Kramer A, Muijtjens A, Jansen K, Düsman H, Tan L, Van der Vleuten C. Comparison of a rational and an empirical standard setting procedure for an OSCE. Objective structured clinical examinations. Med Educ. 2003; 37 (2): 132-139.

9. Meskell P, Burke E, Kropmans TJB, Byrne E, Setyonugroho W, Kennedy KM. Back to the future: An online OSCE Management Information System for nursing OSCEs. Nurse Educ Today. 2015; 35 (11): 1091-1096.

10. Luimes JD, Labrecque ME. Implementation of electronic objective structured clinical examination evaluation in a nurse practitioner program. J Nurs Educ. 2018; 57 (8): 502-505.

11. Daniels VJ, Strand AC, Lai H, Hillier T. Impact of tablet-scoring and immediate score sheet review on validity and educational impact in an internal medicine residency Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE). Med Teach. 2019; 41 (9): 1039-1044.

12. Snodgrass SJ, Ashby SE, Rivett DA, Russell T. Implementation of an electronic Objective Structured Clinical Exam for assessing practical skills in pre-professional physiotherapy and occupational therapy programs: examiner and course coordinator perspectives. Australas J Educ Technol. 2014; 30 (2): 152-166.

13. Judd T, Ryan A, Flynn E, McColl G. If at first you don’t succeed … adoption of iPad marking for high-stakes assessments. Perspect Med Educ. 2017; 6 (5): 356-361.

14. Monteiro S, Sibbald D, Coetzee K. i-Assess: Evaluating the impact of electronic data capture for OSCE. Perspect Med Educ. 2018; 7 (2): 110-119.

15. Schmitz FM, Zimmermann PG, Gaunt K, Stolze M, Guttormsen Schär S. Electronic rating of objective structured clinical examinations: mobile digital forms beat paper and pencil checklists in a comparative study. In: Holzinger A, Simonic K-M, editors. Information Quality in e-Health. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2011. pp. 501-512.

16. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989; 13 (3): 319.

17. Granić A, Marangunić N. Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. Br J Educ Technol. 2019; 50 (5): 2572-2593.

18. Currie GP, Sinha S, Thomson F, Cleland J, Denison AR. Tablet computers in assessing performance in a high stakes exam: opinion matters. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2017; 47 (2): 164-167.

19. Hochlehnert A, Schultz J-H, Möltner A, Tımbıl S, Brass K, Jünger J. Electronic acquisition of OSCE performance using tablets. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2015; 32 (4): Doc41.

20. Denison A, Bate E, Thompson J. Tablet versus paper marking in assessment: feedback matters. Perspect Med Educ. 2016; 5 (2): 108-113.

21. Munro AJ, Cumming K, Cleland J, Denison AR, Currie GP. Paper versus electronic feedback in high stakes assessment. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2018; 48 (2): 148-152.

22. Harrison CJ, Molyneux AJ, Blackwell S, Wass VJ. How we give personalised audio feedback after summative OSCEs. Med Teach. 2015; 37 (4): 323-326.

23. Ashby SE, Snodgrass SH, Rivett DA, Russell T. Factors shaping e-feedback utilization following electronic objective structured clinical examinations. Nurs Health Sci. 2016; 18 (3): 362-369.