ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2249 |
Assessment of Periodontal Examination and Diagnostic Skills through Objective Structured Clinical Examination: An Observational Assessment Tool
1–6Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
Corresponding Author: Mohan K Pasupuleti, Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India, Phone: +91 7799411140, e-mail: mosups@gmail.com
Received on: 03 June 2023; Accepted on: 01 July 2023; Published on: 31 August 2023
ABSTRACT
Aim: The aim of the study was to assess and compare the periodontal examination skills by the conventional and objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) methods.
Materials and methods: A group of 74 final-year dental students was assessed for periodontal examination skills by five different subject experts in this pilot survey. The students were given scores for all four domains and compared both the conventional and OSCE total scores. Self-assessment of competence was evaluated by asking the students to indicate their competence levels for four competence domains on a 4-point scale.
Results: In the cognitive domain, that is, at the examination station, 63.5% of the student’s communication skills were good with 66.2% good attitude. On intraoral gingival examination, all the gingival parameters were found to be accurate by students up to 59 and 100% by conventional and OSCE methods of assessment. However, on periodontal examinations, a maximum number of students could accurately examine the periodontal pocket which constituted 65% by conventional and 100% OSCE methods of assessment.
Conclusion: Following the OSCE’s deployment, it appeared that this technique had been sufficiently modified to demonstrate objectivity, reproducibility, and effectiveness for the evaluation of dental students diagnosing skills.
Clinical significance: The OSCE assessments are widely regarded as the gold standard for assessing clinical competency and have been shown to be extremely successful in assessing dental students’ examination skills.
How to cite this article: Penmetsa GS, Pasupuleti MK, Ramesh KSV, et al. Assessment of Periodontal Examination and Diagnostic Skills through Objective Structured Clinical Examination: An Observational Assessment Tool. World J Dent 2023;14(7):592–597.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None
Keywords: Dental education, Diagnosis, Objective structured clinical examination, Periodontal examination, Students
INTRODUCTION
Over the last 50 years, research in medical and dental education has explored new horizons, and measuring the skills of medical and dental students has also undergone different revolutionary developments. We have progressed from a pen-and-paper test of knowledge and facts to a more complicated method of evaluation. Dentistry students’ clinical competency is often measured in terms of the number of case observations and/or aid with a professor’s treatment, as well as their performance of operations in the student dental clinic.1,2
Traditional methods of student assessment in dental education focused on student knowledge and memorization abilities rather than the cognitive skills required for clinical practice; however, when performance-based criteria were used, it was impossible to assess how effectively higher-level cognition is applied. As patients and payers began to challenge the conventional self-ratification of medical professionals, demanding additional proof of physician training and skill, and the movement toward patient rights began to develop, societal shifts reinforced the need for real-world assessment in medical education.3,4
Today’s medical and dental students are assessed on their knowledge, attitudes, and abilities in a variety of situations and methods. Problem-based learning, computer simulations, faculty worldwide ratings and checklists, standardized patients, and team-based learning are all current educational and assessment methodologies. In the middle of this transformation in medical education, Harden developed the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in 1975, which has since been extensively adopted by educational institutions, notably those in the health sciences (Medicine, dentistry Pharmacy, Nursing).5,6
The OSCE assessments are widely regarded as the gold standard for assessing clinical competency and have been shown to be extremely successful in assessing dental students. The OSCE consists of a sequence of stations that assess students’ skills in obtaining histories, performing particular clinical activities, and evaluating clinical data. It is thorough, consistent, and systematic, with a strong emphasis on process objectivity. By testing a candidate’s clinical abilities, attitudes, or aptitudes for a subject, it provides a common marking scheme for examiners and consistent examination situations for students. It also provides formative input to students and the educational program. Immediate feedback may increase students’ performance on following tests and perhaps improve the overall quality of the learning experience.7
The OSCE was designed to serve numerous reasons, including improving alignment with clinical training goals, facilitating systematic, objective evaluation, and revealing students’ strengths and flaws, therefore increasing the possibility for learning. One of the OSCE examination’s key merits is its intrinsic impartiality, with the goal of removing patient and examiner variance such that the only variable being evaluated is the candidate’s skill. It provides a reliable method for evaluating students’ clinical performance holistically. According to Spanke et al., the OSCE sessions assessed clinical competence strengths, shortcomings, and problems, developed self-assessment abilities, and offered guidance for programmed training requirements.8
Another benefit of the OSCE system is the flexibility and variety provided by the multiple-station architecture. This implies that it is feasible to investigate a variety of talents and disciplines and even to include more than one skill or discipline in the design of a specific station at the same time. Other attributes assessed include problem-solving abilities, critical thinking, and communication skills.9
However, OSCE has limits in measuring students’ ability to execute clinical operations, owing to the impossibility of asking students to do invasive and irreversible treatments on patients. Students have a limited amount of time at each OSCE station to accomplish activities, frequently less than would be available in a real clinical environment for invasive or more difficult procedures.10
According to studies, there is a positive correlation between the performance of undergraduate students in Dentistry at OSCE and their clinical and didactic performance, in which a judgment or evaluation of an individual’s performance is made (summative) followed by the provision of feedback from which the student can learn (formative), corroborating the value of OSCE as an efficient and comprehensive evaluative instrument. The purpose of this study was to assess and evaluate final-year undergraduate students’ periodontal examination and diagnosis abilities using conventional and OSCE methods between June and September 2022.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The cross-sectional observation study was conducted in the Department of Periodontology at Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India, from June and September 2022. The study participants were all final-year undergraduate students of Vishnu Dental College. The study was approved and ethical clearance was from the Institutional Ethical Committee (Ref No: IEC/VDC/22/F/PI/IVV/120). All the procedures were followed according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, which was revised in 2013.
Study Design
After obtaining the informed consent, participants who were final-year students of Vishnu Dental College at the beginning of their academic year were enrolled as a control group. and after assessing their periodontal examination and diagnostic skills by the conventional method by checking all the periodontal clinical parameters and diagnosis criteria by the subject expert according to the periodontics case history record format.
An orientation session was held first to familiarize the faculty with the new objective structured clinical evaluation assessment criteria framed by subject experts of the periodontics department. The periodontal examination and diagnostic skills were assessed and compared in the same final-year students as the test group included in the study (Flowchart 1).
Flowchart 1: Flow diagram of steps in assessing and comparing the examination and diagnostic skills among undergraduate students by conventional and OSCE method
Sample Size
The sample size was determined using a maximum risk of 5%, a minimum power of 80%, and a significance level of 5% (significant at a 95% confidence level). With a sample size of 59 in one group and a standard deviation of 0.5 and a margin of error (confidence interval) of 10, a sample size of 74 in one group would be adequate. As a result, a sample size of 74 was evaluated for each group.
A sample of 74 final-year dental students was assessed for periodontal examination skills by five different subject experts in this pilot survey. The students were given scores for all four domains and a summative periodontal OSCE total score was calculated and compared with the total score obtained with the conventional approach.
Self-assessment of competence was evaluated by asking the students to indicate their competence levels for four competence domains on a 4-point scale—(1) assistant; (2) novice; (3) intermediate; and (4) competent. The four domains were the same as those tested in the summative periodontal OSCE (P-OSCE), that is, knowledge (four questions), history taking and diagnosis (seven questions), treatment plan (three questions), establishing health (six questions), verbal communication (four questions), and written communication (three questions).
Statistical Analysis
For statistical analysis, IBM Statistical Package For the Social Sciences statistics for Windows, version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, United States of America) was used. Analysis of variance was performed to examine differences between the summed scores of self-assessed competence per domain. To examine whether self-assessments per domain were realistic, Spearman rank correlation coefficients were calculated for self-assessed competence per domain, and total score on the end of the year OSCE for the two groups. A p-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
An OSCE questionnaire under three domains (cognitive, psychomotor, and cognitive) with four stations (examination station, case scenario station, scaling, root planing station, and communication station) was developed and scoring was given as poor, below average, average, good and very good. A total of 74 final years undergraduate students were assessed. Under the cognitive domain, that is, examination station the questions were divided into approach and history-related (Q.1–Q.8); intraoral examination gingival (Q.9–Q.17); periodontal examination (Q.18–Q.24) and one question for overall assessment. Under the cognitive domain case scenario station questions were regarding the student’s ability to diagnose, interpret, and treatment planing.
In the cognitive domain, that is, at the examination station, 63.5% of the student’s communication skills were good with 66.2% good attitude. While recording the history completeness (60.3%), relevant points regarding the complaint (59.5%), chief complaint with the present (66.2%), and past (67.6%) dental history including detailed systemic (62.2%) condition was found to be good. Eliciting the details of personal habits (66.2%) and hard tissue examination (73%) was found to be good.
On intraoral gingival examination all the gingival parameters (Q.9–Q.17) were examined by the 74 students, among them the highest accurate responses were for the Q.9 with 59 (80%) students’ examination skills were found to be accurate. Whereas, the gingival parameters were examined by 74 students following the OSCE method, the highest accurate responses were for Q.9 with 74 (100%) students’ examination skills being found to be accurate.
However on periodontal examinations (Q.18–Q.24) maximum of students could accurately examine the periodontal pocket which constituted 48 (65%) by conventional method and 74 (100%) by OSCE method, while other periodontal considerations like a mucogingival problem, clinical attachment loss, furcation involvement, tooth mobility, and pathologic migration most of them were average (31.5–50%) and good (37.8–58.9) by conventional and (48–62%) by OSCE method. On overall examination of soft tissue both gingival and periodontal parameters, 63.5% by the conventional and 67.6% were found to be good by the OSCE method (Table 1).
| Frequencies and percentages in the conventional method | Frequencies and percentages in OSCE method | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Poor n (%) | Below average n (%) | Average n (%) | Good n (%) | Very good n (%) | Poorn % | Below average n (%) | Average n (%) | Good n (%) | Very good n (%) | |
| Q 1. | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 22 (29.7) | 47 (63.5) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 48 (64.9) | 26 (35.1) | |
| Q 2. | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 18 (24.3) | 49 (66.2) | 6 (8.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 50 (67.6) | 24 (32.4) | |
| Q 3. | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 23 (31.5) | 44 (60.3) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 45 (32.9) | 28 (38.3) | |
| Q 4. | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 24 (32.4) | 44 (59.5) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 45 (60.9) | 29 (39.2) | |
| Q 5. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 17 (23) | 49 (66.2) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 52 (70.3) | 22 (29.8) | |
| Q 6. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 17 (23) | 50 (67.6) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 52 (70.3) | 22 (29.8) | |
| Q 7. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 20 (27) | 46 (62.2) | 6 (8.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 48 (64.9) | 26 (35.1) | |
| Q 8. | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 19 (25.7) | 49 (66.2) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 50 (67.6) | 24 (32.5) | |
| Q 9. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 12 (16.2) | 54 (73) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 57 (77.1) | 17 (23) | |
| Q 10. | 0 (0) | 5 (6.8) | 14 (18.9) | 49 (66.2) | 6 (8.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 54 (73) | 20 (27) | |
| Q 11. | 0 (0) | 4 (5.4) | 15 (20.3) | 49 (66.2) | 6 (8.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 19 (71.6) | 21 (28.4) | |
| Q 12. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 17 (23) | 48 (64.9) | 6 (8.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 51 (69) | 23 (31.1) | |
| Q 13. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 20 (27) | 45 (60.8) | 6 (8.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 48 (64.9) | 26 (35.1) | |
| Q 14. | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 23 (31.1) | 44 (59.5) | 6 (8.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 45 (60.9) | 29 (39.2) | |
| Q 15. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 22 (29.7) | 44 (59.5) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 47 (63.6) | 27 (36.5) | |
| Q 16. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 20 (27) | 45 (60.8) | 6 (8.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 48 (64.9) | 26 (35.1) | |
| Q 17. | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 20 (27) | 47 (63.5) | 6 (8.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 48 (64.9) | 26 (35.1) | |
| Q 18. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 23 (31.1) | 44 (59.5) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 47 (63.6) | 27 (36.5) | |
| Q 19. | 0 (0) | 6 (8.1) | 37 (50) | 27 (36.5) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 33 (44.6) | 41 (55.4) | |
| Q 20. | 1 (1.4) | 7 (9.5) | 34 (45.9) | 28 (37.8) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 36 (48.7) | 38 (51.3) | |
| Q 21. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 25 (34.2) | 41 (56.2) | 4 (5.5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 44 (60.3) | 29 (39.7) | |
| Q 22. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 23 (31.5) | 43 (58.9) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 45 (61.6) | 28 (38.3) | |
| Q 23. | 0 (0) | 5 (6.8) | 30 (40.5) | 35 (47.3) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 40 (54.1) | 34 (45.9) | |
| Q 24. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 28 (37.8) | 39 (52.7) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 42 (56.8) | 32 (43.2) | |
| Q 25. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 20 (27) | 47 (63.5) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 50 (67.6) | 24 (32.4) | |
In the cognitive domain, that is, at the case scenario station, (51.4–58.1%) and (54.1–64.9%) of students were found to have good cognitive abilities in identifying clinical pathology, radiographic interpretation (54.1%) and (56.8%), diagnosis (58.1%) and (64.9%), discussing the diagnosing (56.8%) and (64.9%) with treatment plan (56.8%) and (60.9), and stepwise treatment plan (55.4%) and (59.6%), respectively for both conventional OSCE methods of assessment. However, 28.4–40.5% and 54.1–64.9% were average in identifying these at case scenario stations, respectively, for both conventional OSCE methods of assessment (Table 2).
| Frequencies and percentages in conventional method | Frequencies and percentages in OSCE method | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Poor n (%) | Below average n (%) | Average n (%) | Good n (%) | Very good n (%) | Poor n (%) | Below average n (%) | Average n (%) | Good n (%) | Very good n (%) |
| Q 1. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 30 (40.5) | 38 (51.4) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 40 (54.1) | 34 (45.9) |
| Q 2. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 27 (36.5) | 40 (54.1) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 42 (56.8) | 32 (43.3) |
| Q 3. | 0 (0) | 5 (6.8) | 21 (28.4) | 43 (58.1) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 48 (64.9) | 26 (35.2) |
| Q 4. | 0 (0) | 6 (8.1) | 21 (28.4) | 42 (56.8) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 48 (64.9) | 26 (35.2) |
| Q 5. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 24 (32.4) | 42 (56.8) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 45 (60.9 | 29 (39.2) |
| Q 6. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 25 (33.8) | 41 (55.4) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 44 (59.6) | 30 (40.6) |
In the psychomotor domain, while performing the hand scaling and ultrasonic scaling procedures, the majority of the student’s abilities in preparing the patient (74.4%) and (100%), maintenance of sterilization (78.4%) and (100%), accuracy of chair position (65.7%) and (100%), armamentarium (74.3%) and (100%), ability to follow the principles (64.4%) and (100%), ability and duration to perform task (62.2–60.8%) and (100) handling the patient (63.5%) and (100%) were found to be good with a range from (60.8–71.6%) and (100%) and some are average with a range from 20.3 to 31.1%) and (100%), respectively for both conventional OSCE methods of assessment (Table 3).
| Frequencies and percentages in conventional method | Frequencies and percentages in OSCE method | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Poor n (%) | Below average n (%) | Average n (%) | Good n (%) | Very good n (%) | Poor n (%) | Below average n (%) | Average n (%) | Good n (%) | Very good n (%) | |
| Q 1. | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 18 (24.3) | 50 (67.6) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 51 (69) | 23 (31.3) | |
| Q 2. | 0 (0) | 1 (1.4) | 15 (20.3) | 53 (71.6) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 54 (73) | 20 (27.1 | |
| Q 3. | 0 (0) | 3 (4.1) | 22 (30.1) | 45 (61.6) | 3 (4.1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 47 (65.7) | 25 (34.2) | |
| Q 4. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 19 (25.7) | 51 (68.9) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 49 (66.2) | 25 (33.8) | |
| Q 5. | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 22 (30.1) | 47 (64.4) | 4 (5.5) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 49 (66.2) | 25 (33.8) | |
| Q 6. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 22 (29.7) | 46 (62.2) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 48 (64.9) | 26 (35.1) | |
| Q 7. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 23 (31.1) | 45 (60.8) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 47 (63.5) | 27 (36.5) | |
| Q 8. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 20 (27) | 47 (63.5) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 49 (66.2) | 25 (33.8) | |
In the cognitive and psychomotor domains, that is, at the communication station, almost equal number of students were average (37.8–53.4%) to good (43.8–59.5%) in the conventional method, whereas it was 100% in OSCE method in giving postoperative instructions, educating and motivating, and in demonstration of proper brushing technique and interdental aids (Table 4).
| Frequencies and percentages in conventional method | Frequencies and percentages in OSCE method | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Poor n (%) | Below average n (%) | Average n (%) | Good n (%) | Very good n (%) | Poor n (%) | Below average n (%) | Average n (%) | Good n (%) | Very good n (%) |
| Q 1. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 28 (37.8) | 40 (54.1) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 42 (56.8 | 32 (43.2 |
| Q 2. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 33 (44.6) | 34 (45.9) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 36 (48.6) | 38 (51.4) |
| Q 3. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 39 (53.4) | 27 (37) | 5 (6.8) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 29 (39.7) | 44 (60.2) |
| Q 4. | 0 (0) | 5 (6.8) | 34 (45.9) | 31 (41.9) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 36 (48.7 | 38 (51.3) |
| Q 5. | 0 (0) | 2 (2.7) | 28 (37.8) | 40 (54.1) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 42 (56.8) | 32 (43.2) |
| Q 6. | 0 (0) | 6 (8.1) | 35 (47.3) | 29 (39.2) | 4 (5.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 35 (47.3 | 39 (52.7) |
DISCUSSION
In particular, during the transition from preclinical to clinical practice, it is vital to investigate alternative assessment methodologies due to the limitations of traditional exams and the unique features of dental training. This is why the OSCE was adopted in dentistry.10
The implementation of OSCE for the evaluation of dental profession students turned out to be interesting in many respects. Our structured format of periodontal examination, diagnosis, and treatment plan criteria proved to be reproducible since we observed an equivalence of the mean marks obtained in the five comprehensive clinics. So, we were able to confirm the objectivity of this type of examination.11
Mossey et al., in 2001 conducted a study to compare and contrast different types of clinical operative skills scenarios in multi-station OSCE examinations. Student feedback was obtained immediately after the sitting of an OSCE examination on two different occasions. The OSCE was useful in the examination of diagnostic, interpretation, and treatment planing skills. The OSCE method followed in this study also shows advantages in improvising the above-mentioned examination skills of dental students.12
The Stalmach-Przygoda 2020 study, looked into the teacher–examiners’ perceptions of the OSCE and tried to pinpoint the variables that might affect their motivation. Out of a total of 52 teachers, 49 took part in this survey. Over 90% of examiners thought it was transparent and over 90% thought it was fair. The OSCE was seen by teacher-examiners as a fair and transparent examination that was adequate for skill assessment. Despite being challenging to organize, the OSCE was considered worthwhile because it is appropriate for assessing practical skills and positively influences students’ motivation to learn tested skills.13
In the Ataro et al. study published in 2020, they investigated the application of the OSCE from the viewpoint of clinical year-II medical students and their examiners in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Jimma University, Ethiopia. In the Obstetrics–Gynecology Department, where OSCE was utilized as one of the summative assessment methods, 49 students and seven examiners voluntarily participated. According to the study’s findings, faculty should work together, share responsibility, and properly plan in order to reduce obstacles to OSCE implementation.14
In 2023, Cidoncha et al. did a study to explain how the periodontology station was created using a fictitious patient for 5th-year dental students completing an OSCE exam. To find out how the students felt about this station and its features, a questionnaire was prepared. The OSCE method used in this study enabled the students to identify their areas of weakness and, as a result, make improvements to any of the station-evaluated components. In the current study, every student achieved a perfect score for their examination responses and competencies. Hence, the OSCE approach was crucial to both researches.15
Indeed, the Zimmermann and Kadmon study developed a quality assurance tool that can monitor factors influencing grading in a real OSCE and enable targeted training of examiners. Each of the twelve students at the University of Heidelberg’s Medical Faculty received training to carry out a specific assignment for a specific surgical OSCE station. The Zimmermann and Kadmon study concluded that the new tool becomes especially crucial if standardized OSCEs are included in state medical exams and, as a result, become high-stakes tests.16
The Bagnasco et al. study in 2016, reported on one Italian initiative, which evaluated the equity and objectivity of the OSCE method of assessing communication skills. With standardized patients, role-playing was used as a simulation technique. Data were gathered using an observational technique. Two examiners evaluated the students’ performances independently, each using a standardized observation grid to record their findings. In order to ensure equality and objectivity of communication skills assessment in a sizable population of nursing students for the purpose of certification throughout the duration of the examination, the study validated the validity of the OSCE approach.17
In order to establish and assess a score report for a second and 4th-year medical school by OSCE, Daniels et al. undertook a study in 2021. They created an electronic OSCE score report that provided comments and performance by domain both inside and between stations. Students thought their OSCE score report was accurate, detailed their strengths and flaws, and was likely to influence how they will act in the future. These findings were consistent with the current research and when compared to the conventional technique, students generally responded favorably to the OSCE score report’s correctness and capacity for future learning. It was also straightforward to build and apply.18
This research has a few limitations. As just 74 students were enrolled, it is challenging to extrapolate these findings to a larger group. As a result, the sample size would be higher in the future, adequately representing the teachers’ opinions.
The instructor can learn how to mentor the students in the abilities that are taught during their university education by watching them during the OSCE, and based on the test results, the teachers can analyze and appraise any weak areas and create plans to strengthen them.
CONCLUSION
The periodontics department’s subject experts developed systematic criteria and evaluation scores that assisted dental students in their final year with the periodontal examination, diagnosis, and treatment planing. The subject experts confirmed that periodontal examination skills and diagnostic skills improved twofold after the OSCE was put into use, it seemed that the method had been sufficiently altered to show objectivity, reproducibility, and efficacy for the evaluation of dental students. The OSCE assessments are widely regarded as the gold standard for assessing clinical competency and have been shown to be extremely successful in assessing dental students’ examination skills.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, GSP, and MKP; methodology, SNVSG; software, RKSV; validation, AB, and VB; formal analysis, GSP; investigation, MKP, SNVSG, and RKSV; resources, AB and VB; data curation, GSP, AB; writing original draft preparation, MKP; writing review and editing, GSP; visualization, SNVSG; supervision, RKSV; project administration, GSP. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethical Clearance
The study was approved and ethical clearance was from the Institutional Ethical Committee (Ref No: IEC/VDC/22/F/PI/IVV/120). All the procedures were followed according to the CONSORT guidelines and were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, which was revised in 2013.
Informed Consent Statement
The need for informed consent was waived because our study was an observational study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author Mohan K Pasupulet.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India, without which this study could not have been completed.
REFERENCES
1. Egloff-Juras C, Hirtz P, Luc A, et al. An Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) for French Dental Students: Feedback after 2 Years. Dent J (Basel) 2021;9(11). DOI: 10.3390/dj9110136
2. Odusola F, Smith JL, Turrigiano E, et al. The utility of a formative one-station objective structured clinical examination for Substance use disorders in a dental curriculum. Eur J Dent Educ 2021;25(4):813–828. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12661
3. Höfer SH, Schuebel F, Sader R, et al. Development and implementation of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in CMF-surgery for dental students. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013;41(5):412–416. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.007
4. Park SE, Kim A, Kristiansen J, et al. The influence of examiner type on dental students’ OSCE scores. J Dent Educ 2015;79(1):89–94. DOI: 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2015.79.1.tb05861.x
5. De Oliveira FA, Porto FR, Ribeiro CG, et al. Objective structured clinical examination, OSCEs: an advance in the teaching and learning process in the student’s perception. Revista de Odontologia da UNESP 2019;15(2019):48. DOI: 10.1590/1807-2577.02719
6. Schoonheim-Klein ME, Habets LL, Aartman IH, et al. Implementing an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in dental education: effects on students’ learning strategies. Eur J Dent Educ 2006;10(4):226–235. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0579.2006.00421.x
7. Amitani M, Amitani H, Suzuki H, et al. Application of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) for the evaluation of Kampo medicine training. BMC Med Educ 2022;22(1):202. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03264-3
8. Spanke J, Raus C, Haase A, et al. Fairness and objectivity of a multiple scenario objective structured clinical examination. GMS J Med Educ 2019;36(3):Doc26. DOI: 10.3205/zma001234
9. Inayah AT, Anwer LA, Shareef MA, et al. Objectivity in subjectivity: do students’ self and peer assessments correlate with examiners’ subjective and objective assessment in clinical skills? A prospective study. BMJ Open 2017;7(5):e012289. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012289
10. Okugbo SU, Agbonrofo P, Irowa O. Five years after commencing the objective structured clinical examination: are we getting it right? Medical students’ assessment as the measuring index. Afr Health Sci 2020;20(2):960–965. DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v20i2.52
11. Skrzypek A, Szeliga M, Stalmach-Przygoda A, et al. The objective structured clinical examination OSCE from the perspective of 3rd year’s medical students-a pilot study. Folia Medica Cracoviensia 2017;57(3):67–75.
12. Mossey PA, Newton JP, Stirrups DR. Scope of the OSCE in the assessment of clinical skills in dentistry. Br Dent J 2001;190(6):323–326. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800961
13. Stalmach-Przygoda A, Nowakowski M, Kocurek A, et al. Perceptions of clinical teachers acting as examiners regarding the value of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations. Folia Med Cracov 2020;60(2):109–121. DOI: 10.24425/fmc.2020.135017
14. Ataro G, Worku S, Asaminew T. Experience and Challenges of Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE): Perspective of Students and Examiners in a Clinical Department of Ethiopian University. Ethiop J Health Sci 2020;30(3):417–426. DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v30i3.13
15. Cidoncha G, Muñoz-Corcuera M, Sánchez V, et al. The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in Periodontology with Simulated Patient: The Most Realistic Approach to Clinical Practice in Dentistry. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023;20(3): DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20032661
16. Zimmermann P, Kadmon M. Standardized examinees: development of a new tool to evaluate factors influencing OSCE scores and to train examiners. GMS J Med Educ 2020;37(4):Doc40. DOI: 10.3205/zma001333
17. Bagnasco A, Tolotti A, Pagnucci N, et al. How to maintain equity and objectivity in assessing the communication skills in a large group of student nurses during a long examination session, using the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). Nurse Educ Today 2016;38:54–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.11.034
18. Daniels VJ, Ortiz S, Sandhu G, et al. Effect of Detailed OSCE Score Reporting on Learning and Anxiety in Medical School. J Med Educ Curric Dev 2021;8:2382120521992323. DOI: 10.1177/2382120521992323
________________________
© The Author(s). 2023 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and non-commercial reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.