Introduction of structured oral examination in formative assessment of pharmacology for 2nd professional MBBS students

Adesh Patidar; J. N. Chaturvedi

doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20190143

Authors

Adesh Patidar Department of Pharmacology, Govt. Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India
J. N. Chaturvedi Department of Pharmacology, Govt. Shyam Shah Medical College, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20190143

Keywords:

Conventional oral examination, Formative assessment, Structured oral examination

Abstract

Background: Conventional Oral Examination (COE) is criticized for being too subjective and being influenced by academic and non-academic factors. Another pitfall of COE is unequal distribution of time. Different examiners use a different set of questions with varying difficulty levels. Student related factors include gender, accent, vocabulary used and ability to pick nonverbal cues. These factors make COE less reliable and valid assessment tool. To overcome the limitations of this useful tool, SOE can be implement instead of COE.

Methods: It is a prospective and non-randomized study comprising 79 students of pharmacology appeared for two forms of viva i.e. COE and SOE. Three sets of questionnaires - Must know, should know and nice to know were prepared, each having 15 items with increasing difficulty levels and were validated by subject experts and pretested. Ten minutes were allotted for each student for each form of viva. Feedback of students about the novel method was obtained by using semi-structured questionnaire comprising of 19 closed ended questions and one open-ended question.

Results: Structured oral examination (SOE) yielded significantly higher marks as compared to COE. There were significant inter-examiner variations in marks awarded in SOE and COE. Other factors influencing implementation were difficulty in structuring viva, rigid time limits, lack of flexibility in knowledge content, monotony and fatigue. The students perceived this format not different from COE but felt that it required in depth preparation of topic.

Conclusions: Conducting SOE is a resource-intensive exercise. Despite structuring, inter-examiner variability was not completely eliminated. The student’s performance was depended on factors related to examiners such as teaching experience, vernacular language used, and lack of training. Orientation and training of examiners in assessment strategies is necessary. Standardization of questionnaire is necessary before the implementation of SOE for summative assessment.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Thomas CS, Mellsop G, Callender K, Crawshaw J, Ellis PM, Hall A, et al. The oral examination: a study of academic and non‐academic factors. Med Education. 1993 Sep;27(5):433-9.

Torke S, Abraham RR, Ramnarayan K, Asha K. The impact of viva-voce examination on students performance in theory component of the final summative examination in physiology. J Physiol Pathophysiol. 2010 Apr 30;1(1):10-2.

Rangacahri PK. The targeted viva. Adv Physiol Educ. 2004;28:213‑4.

Evans LR, Ingersoll RW, Smith EJ. The reliability, validity, and taxonomic structure of the oral examination. Academic Med. 1966 Jul 1;41(7):651-7.

Patel B, Kubavat A, Piparva K. Correlation of student's performance in theory and practical of final summative pharmacology examination in MBBS curriculum: a critical insight. National J Physiol Pharmacy Pharmacol. 2013 Jul 1;3(2):171.

Shenwai MR, Patil KB. Introduction of structured oral examination as a novel assessment tool to first year medical students in physiology. J Clin Diag Res. 2013 Nov;7(11):2544-7.

Schubert A, Tetzlaff JE, Tan M, Ryckman VJ, Mascha E. Consistency, Inter-rater Reliability, and Validity of 441 Consecutive Mock Oral Examinations in Anesthesiology Implications for Use as a Tool for Assessment of Residents. J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 1999 Jul 1;91(1):288-98.

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 Education Ethics. 2014;4(3):321-5.

Daelmans HE, Scherpbier AJ, Vleuten CP, Donker AJ. Reliability of clinical oral examinations re-examined. Medical Teacher. 2001 Jan 1;23(4):422-4.

DesMarchais JE, Jean P, Delorme P. Training in the art of asking questions at oral examinations. Ann Royal Coll Physicians Surg Canada. 1989;22:213-16.

Rahman G. Appropriateness of using oral examination as an assessment method in medical or dental education. J Education Ethics Dentistry. 2011 Jul 1;1(2):46-51.

Pearce G, Lee G. Viva voce (oral examination) as an assessment method: Insights from marketing students. J Marketing Education. 2009 Aug;31(2):120-30.

Muzzin LJ, Hart L. Oral examinations. In: Neufeld RV, editor. Assessing Clinical Competence. New York: Springer Publishing Co.”1985.

Kshirsagar SV, Fulari SP. Structured oral examination‑student’s perspective. Anatomica Karnataka. 2011;5(2):28-31.