Objective structured practical examination (OSPE) in pharmacognosy: Students' feedback from a cross-sectional survey

Pharmacognosy is traditionally assessed through written examinations and laboratory practical tests, which may insufficiently capture students' ability to apply knowledge, justify analytical decisions, and demonstrate structured scientific reasoning. This study aimed to evaluate fifth-year pharmacy students' immediate feedback following a pharmacognosy objective structured practical examination (OSPE) and to identify implications for assessment design and student support.

A cross-sectional survey of the full eligible cohort (n = 55) was conducted immediately after completion of a summative single-station, 10-min pharmacognosy OSPE. The station assessed specimen identification, Latin nomenclature, key constituents, analytical methods, indications, and related herbal medicinal products using a five-item binary checklist. No simulated patient or clinical case was involved. Students completed an anonymous questionnaire (4-point Likert scale with a "Not applicable" option). Descriptive statistics were reported.

Fifty students responded (90.9%). Key actionable needs included difficulty with study planning (44%) and greater comfort expressing views in writing than orally (58%). Students also reported perceived application of theory to practice (88%) and perceived improvement of critical appraisal skills (80%). Formal institutional support services were used by 37%. Percentages represent the proportion selecting Agree / Strongly agree for each statement (item-wise denominators; "Not applicable" / missing excluded).

Students perceived the pharmacognosy OSPE as relevant and well structured, supporting observation of applied pharmacognosy performance under standardized conditions. Priority enhancements include explicit blueprinting with low-stakes rehearsal, structured opportunities to practice oral communication, and improved signposting and uptake of student-support services. Findings reflect immediate post-exam perceptions and should not be interpreted as objective measures of competence.