Comparing Score between Non-Expert and Expert Provide Formative Assessment during Objective Structured Clinical Examinations in Rectal Irrigation

Abstract

Objective: To compare scoring results in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), rectal irrigation of an infant, between those scored by a content expert and a non-expert examiner. Material and Methods: An OSCE in rectal irrigation practice had been conducted for 5-year medical students in the pre- and post-operative care subject. Practical skills of the examinees were directly observed and scored on a checklist basis by an educational officer who was not a content expert in the surgical field. The scoring was independently performed on a video-recorded basis by a surgical staff. Scoring results were compared using paired t-test and the p-value of less than 0.05 was regarded as having statistical significance. Results: Sixty-three medical students (27 males and 36 females) participated in the examination. On comparison, scoring by non-expert and content expert gave no significant different in the majority of items, except for 2 skills: 1) procedure explanation to parents 2) choosing the right size of rectal tube, in which the content expert gave significantly higher score. Conclusion: Scoring an OSCE by a non-expert gave almost the same outcome when compared to those performed through the video-record by a surgical staff member.

Keywords

• non-expert
• osce
• rectal irrigation