Percepción de examen oral estandarizado vs no estandarizado en el internado de medicina interna.

Resumen

Background: Oral examinations are a useful tool to appraise certain medical skills compared to other examinations. However, they have some disadvantages that might be reduced with standardization. Aim: To compare students’ perception comparing a standardized oral exam (SOE) versus a traditional, non-standardized oral exam (NSOE). Material and methods: During the first semester of 2013 a NSOE was applied to internal medicine undergraduate students. During the second semester, a SOE was applied. An anonymous and voluntary perception questionnaire, consisting in 10 questions based on a 5-level Likert scale, was answered by these students. Statistical analysis was done using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Among the 118 students, 50.8% were evaluated using NSOE and 49.2% using SOE. Questionnaire response rate was 84%. Among respondents, 52% took the SOE and 48%, the NSOE. Students evaluated using SOE perceived that the degree of complexity of clinical cases was similar for all examinees (p<0.05), that exam duration was standardized (p<0.05), and that grades obtained were less influenced by the clinical site where the exam was taken (p<0.05). However, anxiety level remained high in both groups, as well as the overall satisfaction experience. Conclusions: Standardization of an oral examination improves the perception of medical students about levels of difficulty, duration and external influences on the final grade.