Abstract / Summary
Assessment methods are an essential component of competency-based medical education. The Objective Structured Practical Examination (OSPE) is designed to enhance standardization and objectivity in practical assessment. This study aimed to compare student performance across traditional practical examination and OSPE assessment occasions and evaluate third-year medical students’ perceptions of the OSPE format at Al-Quds University. A single-cohort comparative study with repeated measures was conducted among third-year medical students. The same student cohort completed a computerized traditional practical examination (TPE) in the Digestive System course, OSPE-1 in the Endocrine System course, and OSPE-2 in the Reproductive System course. Scores were summarized descriptively and compared using paired-samples t-tests and a linear mixed-effects model with student ID as a random intercept. Because the assessments occurred in different courses and at different time points, results were interpreted as within-cohort performance comparisons across assessment occasions rather than as causal evidence of examination-format superiority. Student perceptions were collected using a 16-item five-point Likert-scale questionnaire. A total of 315 student records were available, with valid sample sizes varying by analysis because of missing scores. OSPE-1 scores (mean = 6.16, SD = 1.69; n = 313) were lower than TPE scores (mean = 6.62, SD = 1.61; n = 314). In paired analysis, OSPE-1 was significantly lower than TPE (mean difference = -0.47, 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.26; p < 0.001). OSPE-2 scores (mean = 6.79, SD = 1.55; n = 311) were not significantly different from TPE in the mixed-effects model. Correlations between assessment occasions were positive but weak to moderate and were interpreted only as exploratory associations. The questionnaire was completed by 140 students (response rate 44.4%). Students generally reported favorable perceptions regarding objectivity, clarity of instructions, teaching value, and confidence building; however, concerns about station timing, emotional stress, and fatigue were common. In this within-cohort study, OSPE was associated with generally positive student perceptions and differing performance patterns across assessment occasions in an integrated preclinical curriculum. However, because assessment format was confounded with course content, timing, and student progression, these findings should not be interpreted as definitive evidence that OSPE is superior to TPE. The results support continued evaluation and refinement of OSPE, with future studies using equivalent blueprints, counterbalanced designs, and station-level psychometric analyses to evaluate validity and reliability more rigorously.