Psychometric Properties of Instruments Measuring Health Sciences Students' Perceptions of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations: A Systematic Review

TL;DR

This paper reviews instruments used to measure health science students' perceptions of OSCEs and finds few are psychometrically valid.

Contribution

The study identifies only two validated instruments for measuring OSCE perceptions and highlights the lack of psychometric rigor in most tools.

Findings

Only two studies met the inclusion and quality criteria for the review.

Most instruments lacked formal reliability or validity testing.

The OSCEPS showed excellent internal consistency and acceptable structural validity.

Abstract

To investigate the instruments used to measure students’ perceptions of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in health sciences and to evaluate their methodological quality.

A systematic review of the peer‐reviewed published literature was conducted to identify, appraise, and summarize the characteristics and methodological quality of instruments developed to assess students’ perceptions of the OSCE in health sciences education. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological transparency and reproducibility. The MERSQI checklist was applied to check the quality of the articles.

Seven electronic databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 2014 and May 2025. Manual reference searches were also performed to capture additional relevant studies. Studies were included if they reported primary research describing the development, adaptation, or psychometric evaluation of instruments measuring students’ perceptions of OSCE experiences in health sciences programs. Methodological quality was assessed using the MERSQI checklist, and studies scoring below 60 out of 100 were excluded evaluate the quality of the included studies, focusing on study design, sampling, data analysis, validity, and outcomes.

A total of 1,578 records were screened, with only two studies meeting the inclusion and quality criteria. The majority of identified instruments lacked psychometric rigor, as they were author‐developed questionnaires without formal reliability or validity testing. Two validated instruments were identified: the SINE‐OSCA Scale and the OSCEPS. The SINE‐OSCA demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, while the OSCEPS exhibited excellent internal consistency and acceptable structural validity, supporting its use for evaluating OSCE experiences.

These findings underscore the scarcity of validated instruments and emphasize the need to test and develop psychometrically robust tools to support assessment practices in OSCE‐based education.

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Figures