An exploratory evaluation of the acceptability of revised physician examinations in South Africa initiated during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa Pub Date : 2026-07-28 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.4102/jcmsa.v4i1.388
Farah Dawood, Veena S Singaram, Bilkish Cassim
{"title":"An exploratory evaluation of the acceptability of revised physician examinations in South Africa initiated during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.","authors":"Farah Dawood, Veena S Singaram, Bilkish Cassim","doi":"10.4102/jcmsa.v4i1.388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study explored the acceptability of the decentralised assessment of clinical competency (AOCC) and digital structured oral examination (SOE), introduced in South Africa (SA) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with a view to informing their potential continuation and refinement in post-pandemic contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods study was conducted with candidates and examiners from SA training centres who participated in the AOCC and SOE in 2020-2021. Quantitative data explored perceptions regarding the credibility of the revised formats. For deeper insights, focus group discussions were held. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty candidates completed the questionnaires with at least one representative from each SA training centre. Twelve examiners responded to the AOCC and 13 to the SOE questionnaires. Both groups viewed the revised formats broadly positively, highlighting the AOCC's fairness, relevance and acceptability. Analysis highlighted advantages such as logistical benefits, and challenges, including the need for standardisation of registrar training. The SOE was endorsed by more than 70% of participants for its standardisation, objectivity and breadth of content coverage. Both groups expressed concerns about limited examiner-candidate interaction, while candidates reported uncertainty regarding the depth of responses required.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The revised formats were broadly acceptable and perceived as valid alternatives to the previous format of the examination. These findings support the continuation of hybrid, decentralised formats for future assessments.</p><p><strong>Contribution: </strong>This study provides insight into the benefits and drawbacks of the amended Fellowship of the College of Physicians (SA) examination format, offering guidance for future reforms in medical assessment in SA and comparable resource-constrained contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":521047,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa","volume":"4 1","pages":"388"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13443918/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/jcmsa.v4i1.388","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This study explored the acceptability of the decentralised assessment of clinical competency (AOCC) and digital structured oral examination (SOE), introduced in South Africa (SA) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, with a view to informing their potential continuation and refinement in post-pandemic contexts.

Methods: A mixed-methods study was conducted with candidates and examiners from SA training centres who participated in the AOCC and SOE in 2020-2021. Quantitative data explored perceptions regarding the credibility of the revised formats. For deeper insights, focus group discussions were held. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

Results: Forty candidates completed the questionnaires with at least one representative from each SA training centre. Twelve examiners responded to the AOCC and 13 to the SOE questionnaires. Both groups viewed the revised formats broadly positively, highlighting the AOCC's fairness, relevance and acceptability. Analysis highlighted advantages such as logistical benefits, and challenges, including the need for standardisation of registrar training. The SOE was endorsed by more than 70% of participants for its standardisation, objectivity and breadth of content coverage. Both groups expressed concerns about limited examiner-candidate interaction, while candidates reported uncertainty regarding the depth of responses required.

Conclusion: The revised formats were broadly acceptable and perceived as valid alternatives to the previous format of the examination. These findings support the continuation of hybrid, decentralised formats for future assessments.

Contribution: This study provides insight into the benefits and drawbacks of the amended Fellowship of the College of Physicians (SA) examination format, offering guidance for future reforms in medical assessment in SA and comparable resource-constrained contexts.

对2019冠状病毒病大流行期间启动的南非修订医师检查可接受性的探索性评估
背景:本研究探讨了2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间南非引入的分散临床能力评估(AOCC)和数字化结构化口腔检查(SOE)的可接受性,以期为它们在大流行后的背景下的延续和完善提供信息。方法:对2020-2021年参加AOCC和SOE的SA培训中心的考生和考官进行混合方法研究。定量数据探讨了对订正格式可信度的看法。为深入了解,我们举行了焦点小组讨论。数据分析采用描述性统计和专题分析。结果:40名考生填写了问卷,每个SA培训中心至少有一名代表。12名审查员回答了AOCC的问题,13名审查员回答了SOE的问题。两组都对修订后的格式持积极态度,强调了AOCC的公平性、相关性和可接受性。分析强调了诸如后勤方面的好处和挑战,包括对书记官长培训标准化的需要。超过七成的受访者认同公营机构的工作标准、客观和内容涵盖范围广。两个小组都对有限的考官与考生互动表示担忧,而考生则表示对所需回答的深度不确定。结论:修订后的格式被广泛接受,并被认为是以前检查格式的有效替代方案。这些调查结果支持在今后的评估中继续采用混合的、分散的形式。贡献:本研究提供了对修订后的医师学院奖学金(SA)考试形式的优点和缺点的见解,为未来在SA和类似资源受限背景下的医学评估改革提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书