Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Considering the Structured Oral Examinations Beyond Its Psychometrics Properties

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decisions to set aside Structured Oral Examinations (SOE) are, almost invariably, based on their poor psychometric properties. However, considering the perspectives of the stakeholders might help us to understand its potential contribution. To explore this, we conducted focus groups and individual interviews with stakeholders: students, assessors, and administrators. Students and assessors perceived the SOE as a window on students’ clinical reasoning, as an authentic assessment, but as a subjective and stressful method. Administrators emphasized the organizational consequences such as logistical challenges. Consequences must be considered when making decisions about SOE and our results support important positive consequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Puppalwar PV, Rawekar A, Chalak A, Dhok A, Khapre M. Introduction of objectively structured viva-voce in formative assessment of medical and dental undergraduates in biochemistry. J Res Med Educ Ethics. 2014;4(3):321–5. https://doi.org/10.5958/2231-6728.2014.00912.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Khilnani AK, Charan J, Thaddanee R, Pathak RR, Makwana S, Khilnani G. Structured oral examination in pharmacology for undergraduate medical students: factors influencing its implementation. Indian J Pharmacol. 2015;47(5):546. https://doi.org/10.4103/2F0253-7613.165182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jefferies A, Simmons B, Ng E, Skidmore M. Assessment of multiple physician competencies in postgraduate training: utility of the structured oral examination. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2011;16(5):569–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-011-9275-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hashim R, Ayyub A, Hameed S, Ali S. Structured viva as an assessment tool: perceptions of undergraduate medical students. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2015;65(1):141–4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shenwai MR, Patil KB. Introduction of structured oral examination as a novel assessment tool to first year medical students in physiology. J Clin Diagn Res JCDR. 2013;7(11):2544. https://doi.org/10.7860/2FJCDR/2F2013/2F7350.3606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wass V, Wakeford R, Neighbour R, Van der Vleuten C. Achieving acceptable reliability in oral examinations: an analysis of the Royal College of General Practitioners membership examination’s oral component. Med Educ. 2003;37(2):126–31. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01417.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Daelmans HE, Scherpbier AJ, van der Vleuten CP, Donker AJ. Reliability of clinical oral examinations re-examined. Med Teach. 2001;23(4):422–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590126522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Scheele F, Driessen EW, Hodges B. The assessment of professional competence: building blocks for theory development. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;24(6):703–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2010.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pernar LIM, Askari R, Breen EM. Oral examinations in undergraduate medical education - what is the ‘value added’ to evaluation? Am J Surg. 2020;220(2):328–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.12.031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cook DA, Lineberry M. Consequences validity evidence: evaluating the impact of educational assessments. Acad Med. 2016;91(6):785–95. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Varpio L, Martimianakis MA, Mylopoulos M. Qualitative research methodologies: embracing methodological borrowing, shifting and importing. In: Cleland J, Durning SJ, editors. Researching medical education. Wiley Online Library. 2015;245–56.

  12. Etikan I, Musa SA, Alkassim RS. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am J Theor Appl Stat. 2016;5(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Clarke V, Braun V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. London: SAGE Publications. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gupta S. Authentic assessment in medicine. J Postgrad Med Educ Res. 2019;53:42–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ten Cate O, Regehr G. The power of subjectivity in the assessment of medical trainees. Acad Med. 2019;94(3):333–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boursicot K, Etheridge L, Setna Z, Sturrock A, Ker J, Smee S, et al. Performance in assessment: consensus statement and recommendations from the Ottawa conference. Med Teach. 2011;33(5):370–83. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.565831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Norcini J, Anderson MB, Bollela V, Burch V, Costa MJ, Duvivier R, et al. 2018 Consensus framework for good assessment. Med Teach. 2018;40(11):1102–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1500016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the study participants who took the time to speak with us. We also thank the team of the Master Class on Writing Research for Publication for their support and relevant feedback.

Funding

This study was funded by the Société des Médecins de l’Université de Sherbrooke. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Société des Médecins de l’Université de Sherbrooke.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 3001 12th Avenue North, Sherbrooke, Québec, J1H 5N4, Canada

    Isabelle Boulais, Frédéric Bernier & Christina St-Onge

  2. Health Sciences Education Center, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

    Kathleen Ouellet

  3. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Research in Health Sciences Program, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

    Elise Vachon Lachiver

  4. School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

    Mélanie Marceau

  5. Health Sciences Education Center, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

    Linda Bergeron

  6. Centre de Recherche Clinique du CHUS, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

    Frédéric Bernier

  7. Paul Grand’Maison de La Société Des Médecins de L, Université de Sherbrooke Research Chair in Medical Education, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

    Christina St-Onge

Authors
  1. Isabelle Boulais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen Ouellet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elise Vachon Lachiver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mélanie Marceau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Linda Bergeron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frédéric Bernier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christina St-Onge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabelle Boulais.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee: Comité d’éthique de la recherche (CÉR) – Éducation et sciences sociales, Université de Sherbrooke. Date of approval: October 1st, 2018. ID number: 2018–1792/Boulais.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boulais, I., Ouellet, K., Lachiver, E.V. et al. Considering the Structured Oral Examinations Beyond Its Psychometrics Properties. Med.Sci.Educ. 33, 345–351 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01729-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-023-01729-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation