rss

This article has a correction

Please see: J Med Ethics 2007;33:186

J Med Ethics 2006;32:734-738 doi:10.1136/jme.2005.015446
  • Teaching and learning ethics

The Objective Structured Clinical Examination and student collusion: marks do not tell the whole truth

  1. R Parks1,
  2. P M Warren2,
  3. K M Boyd3,
  4. H Cameron2,
  5. A Cumming4,
  6. G Lloyd-Jones5
  1. 1Chancellors Building, Little France, Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2Medical Teaching Organisation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
  3. 3Medical School Buildings, University of Edinburgh
  4. 4College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh
  5. 5Cranfield Professional Development, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 G Lloyd-Jones
 Centre for Postgraduate Learning and Teaching, Building 6, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AH, UK; G.Lloyd-Jones{at}cranfield.ac.uk
  • Received 2 December 2005
  • Accepted 9 January 2006
  • Revised 6 January 2006

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether the marks in the third year Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) were affected by the collusion reported by the students themselves on an electronic discussion board.

Design: A review of the student discussion, examiners’ feedback and a comparison of the marks obtained on the 2 days of the OSCE.

Participants: 255 third year medical students.

Setting: An OSCE consisting of 15 stations, administered on three sites over 2 days at a UK medical school.

Results: 40 students contributed to the discussion on the electronic discussion board. The main points raised were perceived inequity between students who did, or did not, have prior knowledge of the station content, and the lack of honesty and professionalism of their peers. Most contributors claimed to have received, or knew of others receiving, prior knowledge, but none confessed to passing on information. No significant difference (p = 0.16) was observed in the overall mark for the OSCE on day 1 (mean 390 (SD 37)) and day 2 (mean 397 (38)). On day 2, marks were considerably greater for four stations and markedly lower for three stations. It was not obvious why collusion should affect these station marks. A clear indication of the effects of collusion could only be obtained from a single subsection of an individual station (pathology) where 82 students on day 2 incorrectly gave the diagnosis from day 1.

Conclusion: Marks do not provide a sound inference of student collusion in an OSCE and may mask the aspects of professional development of students.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. A correction has been published

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content


Free trial
Individuals may register for a free 60 day online trial to all content.

Free archive
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.