Cited by 117Innovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation

The educational impact of Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) and Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) and its association with implementation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Lörwald, Andrea C., Lahner, Felicitas-Maria, Nouns, Zineb M., Berendonk, Christoph, Norcini, John, Greif, Robert, Huwendiek, Sören·2018·PLOS ONE

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Mini Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) and Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) are used as formative assessments worldwide. Since an up-to-date comprehensive synthesis of the educational impact of Mini-CEX and DOPS is lacking, we performed a systematic review. Moreover, as the educational impact might be influenced by characteristics of the setting in which Mini-CEX and DOPS take place or their implementation status, we additionally investigated these potential influences. METHODS: We searched Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid, including All Ovid Journals, Embase, ERIC, Ovid MEDLINE(R), and PsycINFO, for original research articles investigating the educational impact of Mini-CEX and DOPS on undergraduate and postgraduate trainees from all health professions, published in English or German from 1995 to 2016. Educational impact was operationalized and classified using Barr's adaptation of Kirkpatrick's four-level model. Where applicable, outcomes were pooled in meta-analyses, separately for Mini-CEX and DOPS. To examine potential influences, we used Fisher's exact test for count data. RESULTS: We identified 26 articles demonstrating heterogeneous effects of Mini-CEX and DOPS on learners' reactions (Kirkpatrick Level 1) and positive effects of Mini-CEX and DOPS on trainees' performance (Kirkpatrick Level 2b; Mini-CEX: standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.26, p = 0.014; DOPS: SMD = 3.33, p<0.001). No studies were found on higher Kirkpatrick levels. Regarding potential influences, we found two implementation characteristics, "quality" and "participant responsiveness", to be associated with the educational impact. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited evidence, the meta-analyses demonstrated positive effects of Mini-CEX and DOPS on trainee performance. Additionally, we revealed implementation characteristics to be associated with the educational impact. Hence, we assume that considering implementation characteristics could increase the educational impact of Mini-CEX and DOPS.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0198009

Cites

58 of 58 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: 2

  1. [15]Barr H, Freeth D, Hammick M, Koppel I, Reeves S. Evaluations of interprofessional education. London: United Kingdom Review of Health and Social Care 2000.
  2. [25]Schwarzer G. Meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R news. 2007; 7(3): 40– 5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lörwald, A. C., Lahner, F.-M., Nouns, Z. M., Berendonk, C., Norcini, J., Greif, R., & Huwendiek, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (US)
Corresponding author
Lörwald, Andrea C.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2018-06-04
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
e0198009
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2807114631
Cited by
117
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Keywords
Mini-CEX, Direct Observation of Procedural Skills, formative assessment, clinical skills assessment, Kirkpatrick model, implementation characteristics, trainee performance, undergraduate medical education, graduate education, participant responsiveness, assessment quality
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Education, Medical, Educational Measurement, Humans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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