Does objective structured clinical examination examiners’ backgrounds influence the score agreement?

Introduction: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) examiners come from various backgrounds. This background variability may affect the way they score examinees. This study aimed to understand the effect of background variability influencing the examiners’ score agreement in OSCE’s procedural skill. Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted with explanatory sequential design. OSCE examiners (n=64) in the Faculty of Medicine Universitas Kristen Duta Wacana (FoM-UKDW) took part to assess two videos of Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) competence to get their level of agreement by using Fleiss Kappa. One video portrayed CPR according to performance guideline, and the other portrayed CPR not according to performance guidelines. Primary survey, CPR procedure, and professional behaviour were assessed. To confirm the assessment results qualitatively, in-depth interviews were also conducted. Results: Fifty-one examiners (79.7) completed the assessment forms. From 18 background categories, there was a good agreement (>60) in: Primary survey (4 groups), CPR procedure (15 groups), and professional behaviour (7 groups). In-depth interviews revealed several personal factors involved in scoring decisions: 1) Examiners use different references in assessing the skills; 2) Examiners use different ways in weighting competence; 3) The first impression might affect the examiners’ decision; and 4) Clinical practice experience drives examiners to establish a personal standard. Conclusion: This study identifies several factors of examiner background that allow better agreement of procedural section (CPR procedure) with specific assessment guidelines. We should address personal factors affecting scoring decisions found in this study in preparing faculty members as OSCE examiners. © 2021 TAPS. All rights reserved.