Rasalkar Kavita, Tripathy Sunita, Sinha Sulekha, Mukherjee Bikramaditya, Takkella Nagamma, Dadel Elvis Vishal, Sundriyal Monit, Prasad Swetanka
Department of Biochemistry, Manipal Tata Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576 104, India.
BMC Med Educ. 2025 Jun 4;25(1):835. doi: 10.1186/s12909-025-07428-9.
Medical students' skills and knowledge have traditionally been assessed through written and oral examinations (viva-voce). Structured viva-voce is an objective structured method to assess students orally. As an assessment tool it was used informally since 1989, however it was described separately by Oakley and Hencken in 2005. Hybrid method is a combination of both structured and traditional viva-voce methods. This study aims to assess the methods for inter-examiner consistency to minimize variations in scoring during viva-voce. It further investigates medical students' perceptions regarding the fairness, transparency, and overall experience of the assessment formats: structured viva-voce, traditional viva-voce, and hybrid method. By examining these perspectives, the study seeks to provide insights into optimizing viva-voce methods for improved reliability and student satisfaction.
Oral assessment was scheduled. Validated structured viva-voce cards, based on Bloom's taxonomy and reviewed by the experts were prepared. Each student underwent a 5-minute structured viva using two different card sets, followed by a 5-minute traditional viva conducted by both examiners. A hybrid format included combining both methods. Feedback was obtained through a mixed questionnaire with quantitative (Likert scale) and qualitative (open-ended) items on the examination methods.
The study evaluated variation in scoring between 2 examiners for three viva-voce formats: structured, traditional, and hybrid (a combination of both traditional and structured) among 151 students with 53.6% females and 46.3% males. The Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed significant inter-examiner variability in structured viva-voce and Set 2 of traditional viva-voce (p < 0.05), while the hybrid method showed better consistency between examiners. Pearson correlation and reliability analyses indicated that the hybrid viva-voce demonstrated higher inter-examiner consistency, correlation coefficients, and reliability (ICC and Cronbach's α = 0.663) compared to structured and traditional formats, suggesting it may be a more effective assessment method. Feedback revealed that 56% of students preferred the hybrid format for its balance of objectivity and flexibility. While structured viva-voces excelled in fairness and coverage, traditional viva-voces were appreciated for flexibility but suffered from inconsistency. Overall, the hybrid format emerged as the effective assessment method, offering enhanced reliability and student satisfaction by addressing the shortcomings of both individual formats. These findings suggest the potential of hybrid viva-voce in fostering a consistent and comprehensive evaluation framework.
Not applicable.
医学生的技能和知识传统上通过笔试和口试（口试）进行评估。结构化口试是一种客观的结构化口试评估方法。作为一种评估工具，自1989年以来它被非正式地使用，但在2005年由奥克利和亨肯分别进行了描述。混合方法是结构化口试方法和传统口试方法的结合。本研究旨在评估考官间一致性的方法，以尽量减少口试评分中的差异。它进一步调查了医学生对结构化口试、传统口试和混合方法这几种评估形式的公平性、透明度和总体体验的看法。通过审视这些观点，该研究旨在为优化口试方法以提高可靠性和学生满意度提供见解。
安排了口试评估。基于布鲁姆分类法并经专家审核的经过验证的结构化口试卡片被准备好。每个学生使用两套不同的卡片进行5分钟的结构化口试，然后由两位考官进行5分钟的传统口试。混合形式包括将两种方法结合起来。通过一份包含关于考试方法的定量（李克特量表）和定性（开放式）项目的混合问卷获得反馈。
该研究评估了151名学生（其中女性占53.6%，男性占46.3%）在三种口试形式（结构化、传统和混合（传统与结构化的结合））下两位考官之间的评分差异。威尔科克森符号秩检验显示，结构化口试和传统口试的第二套卡片存在显著的考官间变异性（p < 0.05），而混合方法在考官之间表现出更好的一致性。皮尔逊相关性和可靠性分析表明，与结构化和传统形式相比，混合口试表现出更高的考官间一致性、相关系数和可靠性（组内相关系数和克朗巴哈系数α = 0.663），这表明它可能是一种更有效的评估方法。反馈显示，56%的学生因其客观性和灵活性的平衡而更喜欢混合形式。虽然结构化口试在公平性和覆盖范围方面表现出色，但传统口试因其灵活性而受到赞赏，但存在不一致性。总体而言，混合形式成为有效的评估方法，通过解决两种单独形式的缺点，提高了可靠性和学生满意度。这些发现表明混合口试在建立一致和全面的评估框架方面的潜力。
不适用。
