Evaluation of a multi-methods approach to the collection and dissemination of feedback on OSCE performance in dental education.

INTRODUCTION: Feedback is an essential part of the learning process, and students expect their feedback to be personalised, meaningful and timely. Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) assessments allow examiners to observe students carefully over the course of a number of varied station types, across a number of clinical knowledge and skill domains. They therefore present an ideal opportunity to record detailed feedback which allows students to reflect on and improve their performance. METHODS: This article outlines two methods by which OSCE feedback was collected and then disseminated to undergraduate dental students across 2-year groups in a UK dental school: (i) Individual written feedback comments made by examiners during the examination, (ii) General audio feedback recorded by groups of examiners immediately following the examination. Evaluation of the feedback was sought from students and staff examiners. A multi-methods approach utilising Likert questionnaire items (quantitative) and open-ended feedback questions (qualitative) was used. Data analysis explored student and staff perceptions of the audio and written feedback. RESULTS: A total of 131 students (response rate 68%) and 52 staff examiners (response rate 83%) completed questionnaires. Quantitative data analysis showed that the written and audio formats were reported as a meaningful source of feedback for learning by both students (93% written, 89% audio) and staff (96% written, 92% audio). Qualitative data revealed the complementary nature of both types of feedback. Written feedback gives specific, individual information whilst audio shares general observations and allows students to learn from others. The advantages, limitations and challenges of the feedback methods are discussed, leading to the development of an informed set of implementation guidelines. CONCLUSION: Written and audio feedback methods are valued by students and staff. It is proposed that these may be very easily applied to OSCEs running in other dental schools.

Can we improve on situational judgement tests?

Situational judgement tests (SJTs) are multiple-choice psychological assessments that claim to measure professional attributes such as empathy, integrity, team involvement and resilience. One of their attractions is the ability to rank large numbers of candidates. Last year SJTs formed a major component (50% of the assessment marks) of the selection process for dental foundation training (DFT). However, it is not clear what SJTs are actually assessing. There is also the concern that applicants who have developed ethical reasoning skills may be disadvantaged by such tests. The DFT selection process needs to explicitly recognise the importance of ethical reasoning.