Cited by 45Innovations in Medical EducationStudent Assessment and FeedbackClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Examining the educational impact of the mini-CEX: a randomised controlled study

Open access
Martinsen, Susanne Skjervold Smeby, Espeland, Torvald, Berg, Erik Andreas Rye, Samstad, Eivind, Lillebo, Børge, Slørdahl, Tobias S.·2021·BMC Medical Education

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) as a formative assessment tool among undergraduate medical students, in terms of student perceptions, effects on direct observation and feedback, and educational impact. Methods: Cluster randomised study of 38 fifth-year medical students during a 16-week clinical placement. Hospitals were randomised to provide a minimum of 8 mini-CEXs per student (intervention arm) or continue with ad-hoc feedback (control arm). After finishing their clinical placement, students completed an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), a written test and a survey. Results: All participants in the intervention group completed the pre-planned number of assessments, and 60% found them to be useful during their clinical placement. Overall, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in reported quantity or quality of direct observation and feedback. Observed mean scores were marginally higher on the OSCE and written test in the intervention group, but not statistically significant. Conclusions: There is considerable potential in assessing medical students during clinical placements and routine practice, but the educational impact of formative assessments remains mostly unknown. This study contributes with a robust study design, and may serve as a basis for future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12909-021-02670-3

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [36]Barr H Freeth D Hammick M Koppel I Reeves S Evaluations of interprofessional education 2000 London United Kingdom Review of Health and Social Care

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martinsen, S. S. S., Espeland, T., Berg, E. A. R., Samstad, E., Lillebo, B., & Slørdahl, T. S.
Affiliations
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Published
2021-04-21
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
228-228
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3153674181
Cited by
45
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10
FWCI
4.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
Mini-CEX, formative assessment, undergraduate medical students, clinical practicum, direct observation, feedback, student perceptions, OSCE, clinical skills assessment, educational impact
MeSH terms
Clinical Clerkship, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Humans, Physical Examination, Students, Medical

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