Examiner seniority and experience are associated with bias when scoring communication, but not examination, skills in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) in Australia

We compared the mean scores awarded for generic and clinical communication and physical examination skills in 2 undergraduate medicine OSCEs in relation to examiner characteristics (gender, examining experience, occupation, seniority, and speciality). Our OSCE focused on 3 domains graded across 9 criteria (items): generic communication skills (4 items); clinical communication skills (i.e., medical history taking; 3 items); and physical examination skills (2 items). A grade was awarded for each criterion and post-assessment processing assigned a numerical mark to each grade, as follows: fail (F = 3/10); borderline pass (P- = 5/10); clear pass (P = 7/10); and exceeded expectations/distinction (P+ = 9/10). The numerical marks were totalled to give an overall score for each student within each domain. Grades were entered into an in-house app presented on iPads® to the examiners. Every student was assessed by a single examiner per station, producing 1 mark for each of the 9 criteria. In total, there were 6 stations per candidate (total number of items=54). Data on examiner characteristics were collected at each OSCE sitting, and included gender, examining experience, occupation, seniority, and speciality. Experience was defined based on the number of times the examiner had evaluated medical student OSCEs at UNSW prior to the present study, and was categorised into the first time, the second to fifth time, or more than the fifth time. Occupations were consolidated into the categories of clinicians, academics, or clinical tutors. A senior doctor was considered to be any clinician working at the consultant grade, while junior doctors were defined as interns, residents, registrars, or fellows. General practitioners, paediatricians, and general internal medicine physicians were all regarded as non-specialists (‘generic’)