Comparing the Perceptions of Reciprocal- and Near-Peer Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) in Medical Students.

Introduction: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is utilized by medical schools to assess students' competency in clinical skills. Literature has shown that first-year students who were tutored by fourth-year students (MS4s; near-peer) in practice OSCEs reported self-perceived improvement in OSCE skills. There is a lack of research regarding the effectiveness of first-year (MS1) pairs for reciprocal-peer practice OSCEs. This study aims to assess if virtual reciprocal-peer OSCEs provide comparable learning opportunities to virtual near-peer OSCEs.

Methods: MS1 students were assigned to work with a near-peer or a reciprocal-peer for one week, and then switched protocols the second week. One student in each reciprocal-peer pair was assigned to act as a standardized patient (SP). Their partner took a history, interpreted physical exam findings, prepared a note, and gave an oral presentation. The pair then switched roles using a second case. The near-peer group followed the same procedure, without the reversal of roles.

Results: A total of 135 MS1s participated in the first week and 129 in the second week. Students agreed that working with a near-peer was more valuable than a reciprocal-peer in the following parameters: peer feedback (N=113, 89%), history-taking skills (N=101, 80%), physical exam skills (N=102, 81%), and note-writing skills (N=109, 89%). Pairwise comparison utilizing Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated participants preferred the choice of a fourth-year student partner over an MS1 partner (Z=1.436, p<0.001).

Conclusion: Participants found working with a near-peer increased confidence in their clinical skills and near-peer feedback was more valuable. Although MS1s found that watching and evaluating their peers in a reciprocal-peer exercise was beneficial, students overwhelmingly preferred working with MS4s due to more valuable feedback.