Mixed-methods study reveals OSPE improves practical skills and student perceptions in Physiology education.
Background: The Objective Structured Practical Examination (OSPE) is a structured, competency-based method for assessing practical skills. While OSPE is well established in clinical settings as Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), its feasibility and educational utility in preclinical subjects like Physiology in India remain underexplored. Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, utility, and student perceptions of OSPE as a formative assessment tool for practical Physiology competencies in the context of the Indian medical education system under the new competency-based curriculum. Methods: This mixed-methods study was conducted among 100 first-year MBBS students. Two OSPE examinations were conducted one month apart. Core certifiable competencies on blood pressure measurement and neurological examination were assessed. Quantitative analysis compared student scores across both exams. Student perceptions were documented using feedback questionnaire. Narrative feedback from students was analyzed through thematic analysis. Results: Students performed better on their second OSPE examination than the first one(p < .001) for all but one of the six questions. This may partly reflect a testing effect from reassessment of similar competencies. Questionnaire responses indicated strong agreement on OSPE’s fairness (80%) and relevance (97.3%), with 81.3% advocating for its regular use. Thematic analysis highlighted strengths such as objectivity and skill focus, alongside weaknesses (time constraints, limited feedback) and threats (logistical challenges, subject cooperation). Conclusion: OSPE is a feasible and effective formative assessment tool for Physiology within the Indian Competency Based Medical Education (CBME) framework. This work adds context-specific insights from a resource-constrained Indian setting, offering practical directions for sustainable OSPE integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhagat et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: