A quasi-experimental study shows OSTE enhances teaching competencies in clinical preceptors, suggesting effective training tools.
Background: Although clinical preceptors (CPs) are vital to the retention of new nurses, evaluations of post-training changes in their teaching behavior are limited. The Objective Structured Teaching Examination (OSTE), designed to assess and enhance the instructional skills of CPs, is underutilized in nursing education. Purpose: This study was developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the OSTE in improving teaching competencies in CPs, with effectiveness tracked longitudinally at 3 and 6 months postintervention. Methods: A nonrandomized allocation, longitudinal, parallel design was used in this quasi-experimental study. One hundred twenty-two CPs working at one Taiwanese medical center were enrolled as participants and assigned to experimental ( n =63) and control ( n =59) groups. The experimental group completed seven OSTE sessions based on core competencies. Teaching competencies were measured using the Clinical Teaching Behavior Inventory (CTBI) at four time points: pre-OSTE, post-OSTE, and 3 and 6 months post-OSTE. Data were analyzed using generalized estimation equations. Results: The experimental group showed significant improvements in all CTBI domains immediately after the intervention (all p ≤ .003), with the CTBI total score remaining significantly elevated at 3 months ( p =.026) and 6 months ( p =.004) postintervention. The improvements in the control group were shown to be uneven and not significant until 6 months post-test. In all participants, clinical ladder level was found to relate positively to CTBI total score. Conclusions: OSTE effectively enhances teaching competencies in CPs in the short term, with these effects declining but remaining significant through at least 6 months postintervention. Ongoing training and integrated assessment tools are necessary to realize and sustain improvements in CP clinical teaching efficacy over the long term.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: