Table 1. Faculty perspective of characteristics of the traditional oral examination (TOE) and the standardized oral examination (SOE)
Survey Item TOE (n=20) % (n) SOE (n=25) % (n)
Number of times administered an oral exam    
1-5 35 (7) 80 (20)
6-10 30 (6) 8 (2)
11-15 5 (1) 8 (2)
> 15 30 (6) 4 (1)
Satisfaction about the required time commitment    
Satisfied and Very Satisfied 85 (17) 88 (21)
Neutral 15 (3) 8 (2)
Dissatisfied and Very dissatisfied 0 (0) 4 (1)
Level of objectivity of oral exam in assessing students’ clinical knowledge and skills    
Objective and Very Objective 60 (12) 92 (23)
Neutral 25 (5) 0 (0)
Subjective and Very subjective 15 (3) 8 (2)
Level of usefulness of oral exam in assessing:    
          Communication    
Extremely useful 50 (10) 48 (12)
Moderately useful and Somewhat useful 45 (9) 40 (10)
Slightly useful and Not at all useful 5 (1) 12 (3)
Clinical knowledge    
Extremely useful 25 (5) 44 (11)
Moderately useful and Somewhat useful 65 (13) 48 (12)
Slightly useful and Not at all useful 10 (2) 8 (2)
            Knowledge application    
Extremely useful 25 (5) 48 (22)
Moderately useful and Somewhat useful 70 (14) 48 (22)
Slightly useful and Not at all useful 5 (1) 4 (1)
           Clinical reasoning    
Extremely useful 35 (7) 40 (10)
Moderately useful and Somewhat useful 55 (11) 56 (14)
Slightly useful and Not at all useful 10 (2) 4 (1)
           Professionalism    
Extremely useful 30 (6) 24 (6)
Moderately useful and Somewhat useful 35 (7) 48 (12)
Slightly useful and Not at all useful 35 (7) 28 (7)
           Student overall clerkship performance*    
Extremely useful 11 (2) 22 (5)
Moderately useful and Somewhat useful 72 (13) 69 (16)
Slightly useful and Not at all useful 17 (3) 9 (2)
Oral exam with standardized questions would be a more objective way to assess students’ clinical knowledge and skills?    
Yes N/A 88 (22)
Would like to administer the oral exam again?    
Yes N/A 100 (25)

*There were missing data for TOE and SOE for the item asking about overall clerkship performance.

Int J Med Educ. 2018; 9:255-261; doi: 10.5116/ijme.5b96.17ca