Objectivity in subjectivity: do students’ self and peer assessments correlate with examiners’ subjective and objective assessment in clinical skills? A prospective study

Abstract

ObjectivesThe qualitative subjective assessment has been exercised either by self-reflection (self-assessment (SA)) or by an observer (peer assessment (PA)) and is considered to play an important role in students’ development. The objectivity of PA and SA by students as well as those by faculty examiners has remained debated. This matters most when it comes to a high-stakes examination. We explored the degree of objectivity in PA, SA, as well as the global rating by examiners being Examiners’ Subjective Assessment (ESA) compared with Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE).DesignProspective cohort study.SettingUndergraduate medical students at Alfaisal University, Riyadh.ParticipantsAll second-year medical students (n=164) of genders, taking a course to learn clinical history taking and general physical examination.Main outcome measuresA Likert scale questionnaire was distributed among the participants during selected clinical skills sessions. Each student was evaluated randomly by peers (PA) as well as by himself/herself (SA). Two OSCEs were conducted where students were assessed by an examiner objectively as well as subjectively (ESA) for a global rating of confidence and well-preparedness. OSCE-1 had fewer topics and stations, whereas OSCE-2 was terminal and full scale.ResultsOSCE-1 (B=0.10) and ESA (B=8.16) predicted OSCE-2 scores. ‘No nervousness’ in PA (r=0.185, p=0.018) and ‘confidence’ in SA (r=0.207, p=0.008) correlated with ‘confidence’ in ESA. In ‘well-preparedness’, SA correlated with ESA (r=0.234, p=0.003).ConclusionsOSCE-1 and ESA predicted students’ performance in the OSCE-2, a high-stakes evaluation, indicating practical ‘objectivity’ in ESA, whereas SA and PA had minimal predictive role. Certain components of SA and PA correlated with ESA, suggesting partial objectivity given the limited objectiveness of ESA. Such difference in ‘qualitative’ objectivity probably reflects experience. Thus, subjective assessment can be used with some degree of objectivity for continuous assessment.

Enhancing Scientific Communication Skills: a Real-World Simulation in a Tertiary-Level Life Science Class Using E-Learning Technology in Biomedical Literature Perception, Reflective Review Writing on a Clinical Issue, and Self and Peer Assessments

“…The latter were the highest average marks, which is similar to other reports (Inayah et al, 2017;Leach 2012;Strong et al 2004). Our observation that peers were more severe in their judgments than the teachers was different to some studies (Inayah et al, 2017;Kommalage and Gunawardena 2011;Leach 2012;Strong et al 2004), but similar to other reports (Albanese et al 1991;Eppler et al 2018;Lurie et al 2006); in particular, medical students with low levels of peer-assessed interpersonal attributes were proposed to be more negative in their judgments of classmates (Lurie et al 2006). In the present study, some students were skeptical with regard to the peer marks and felt affected from the harsh criticism by their peers, which is reflected by the emotional course blog discussion.…”

The influence of gender on clinical examination skills of medical students in Jordan: a cross-sectional study

“…We did not have resources to do this for the number of clinical examinations and students being surveyed, and would have great difficulty undertaking observed intimate examinations in our context. Self-efficacy itself is problematic, and there are many studies that show that subjective self-assessment does not always correlate with objectively measured performance [23,27,28]. Further studies with more resources may be able to actual observe and assess clinical skill.…”

Brazilian version of the Calgary-Cambridge Observational Guide (CCOG): cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties

“…In addition, the difficulties presented when evaluating and judging the items may hamper a final summative evaluation. Increasing discussions have taken place regarding the association of judging by items with a subjective holistic judgment 13 . Some studies comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global assessment scales in OSCEs evaluated by experts indicated a higher reliability between stations and a better validity than checklists 14,15 .…”