Assessing Advanced Communication Skills via Objective Structured Clinical Examination: A Comparison of Faculty Versus Self, Peer, and Standardized Patient Assessors
Abstract
Construct: The construct addressed in this study is assessment of advanced communication skills among senior medical students. Background: The question of who should assess participants during objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) has been debated, and options discussed in the literature have included peer, self, standardized patient, and faculty assessment models. What is not known is whether same-level peer assisted learning can be utilized for formative assessment of advanced communication skills when no faculty, standardized patients, or other trained assessors are involved in providing feedback. If successful, such an educational model would optimize resource utilization and broaden the scope of topics that could be covered in formative OSCEs. Approach: The investigators developed a 4-station formative OSCE focused on advanced communication skills for senior medical students, and evaluated the concordance of assessment done by same-level peers, self, standardized patients, and faculty for 45 students. After each station, examinees completed a self-assessment checklist and received checklist-based assessment and verbal feedback from same-level peers only. Standardized patients completed checklist-based assessments outside the room, and faculty did so after the OSCE via video review; neither group provided direct feedback to examinees. The investigators assessed inter-rater agreement and mean difference scores on the checklists using faculty score as the gold standard. Findings: There was fair to good overall agreement among self, same-level peer, standardized patient, and faculty-assessment of advanced communication skills. Relative to faculty, peer and standardized patient assessors overestimated advanced communication skills, while self-assessments underestimated skills. Conclusions: Self and same-level peer-assessment may be a viable alternative to faculty assessment for a formative OSCE on advanced communication skills for senior medical students.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Self-assessment encourages critical engagement with learning materials, reflection on work, and self-awareness of academic and clinical development.
“When incorporated into formative assessment models, self-assessment encourages critical engagement with learning materials, encouraging students to reflect on their work and become more self-aware of their academic and clinical development [120,121].”
From Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189 (2026) · cites this paper as [121]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Talwalkar, J. S., Murtha, T. D., Prozora, S., Fortin, A. H., Morrison, L. J., & Ellman, M. S.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Talwalkar, Jaideep S.
- Venue
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-03-06
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 294-307
- ISSN
- 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8015
- OpenAlex
- W3010349248
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 1.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- OSCE, formative assessment, peer assessment, self-assessment, standardized patients, faculty assessment, interobserver agreement, senior medical students, checklist-based assessment, communication skills assessment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Educational Measurement, Female, Humans, Male, Medical History Taking, Mentors, Physical Examination, Physician-Patient Relations, Self-Assessment, Students, Medical, Problem-Based Learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review