Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 11, 2025

A Cross-Disciplinary and Multi-Modal Experimental Design for Studying Near-Real-Time Authentic Examination Experiences
Published on: September 4, 2019
Examiners' decision-making processes in observation-based clinical examinations
Bunmi S Malau-Aduli1, Richard B Hays1, Karen D'Souza2
1College of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia.
Background:
Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are commonly used to assess the clinical skills of health professional students. Examiner judgement is one acknowledged source of variation in candidate marks. This paper reports an exploration of examiner decision making to better characterise the cognitive processes and workload associated with making judgements of clinical performance in exit-level OSCEs.
Methods:
Fifty-five examiners for exit-level OSCEs at five Australian medical schools completed a NASA Task Load Index (TLX) measure of cognitive load and participated in focus group interviews immediately after the OSCE session. Discussions focused on how decisions were made for borderline and clear pass candidates. Interviews were transcribed, coded and thematically analysed. NASA TLX results were quantitatively analysed.
Results:
Examiners self-reported higher cognitive workload levels when assessing a borderline candidate in comparison with a clear pass candidate. Further analysis revealed five major themes considered by examiners when marking candidate performance in an OSCE: (a) use of marking criteria as a source of reassurance; (b) difficulty adhering to the marking sheet under certain conditions; (c) demeanour of candidates; (d) patient safety, and (e) calibration using a mental construct of the 'mythical [prototypical] intern'. Examiners demonstrated particularly higher mental demand when assessing borderline compared to clear pass candidates.
Conclusions:
Examiners demonstrate that judging candidate performance is a complex, cognitively difficult task, particularly when performance is of borderline or lower standard. At programme exit level, examiners intuitively want to rate candidates against a construct of a prototypical graduate when marking criteria appear not to describe both what and how a passing candidate should demonstrate when completing clinical tasks. This construct should be shared, agreed upon and aligned with marking criteria to best guide examiner training and calibration. Achieving this integration may improve the accuracy and consistency of examiner judgements and reduce cognitive workload.
More Related Videos
10:38Observational Study Protocol for Repeated Clinical Examination and Critical Care Ultrasonography Within the Simple Intensive Care Studies
Published on: January 16, 2019
13:20Online Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of Dorsomedial and Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex in Cognition Decision Making, and Cognitive Dissonance
Published on: December 5, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Critical Thinking II
Data Collection III
The principles to begin the physical assessment include conducting a comprehensive or problem-related history in a quiet, well-lit room, emphasizing privacy and comfort for the...
Naturalistic Observations
Patient-centered Care
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...
Critical Thinking I