An interventional study of High-Stake OSCE in Medical Education, sponsored by Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences. Completed at 1 site in Iran. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-06-18.
Sponsored by Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
Abstract Background: Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are vital for assessing nursing competence. However, the design of OSCE stations, particularly comparing critical (high-stakes) versus routine (low-stakes) scenarios, may differentially impact student stress and clinical performance. This experimental study compared these effects to inform the optimal design of assessments.
Methods: This 2024 experimental study at Torbat Heydariyeh University randomly assigned 78 final-year nursing students to two groups (n=39 each). The Intervention Group faced a critical CPR station where failure resulted in exam disqualification, while the Control Group faced a standard routine station. Both groups received identical Basic Life Support (BLS) training in accordance with the 2020 AHA guidelines. Outcomes were assessed using: (a) the PSS-10 stress scale (α=0.85); (b) a 20-item BLS knowledge test; and (c) a 17-item CPR skills checklist, with performance metrics (depth, rate, ventilation) recorded objectively by a Laerdal QCPR® manikin. Data were analyzed using independent t-tests and the Mann-Whitney test to achieve 80% power.
Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
There is routine and non-stakes OSCE in the control-group
Other: High-Stake OSCE
In this intervention, students had to pass more challenging OSCE in comparison with contol-group
Stress of students in OSCE exam
stress of students was measured by pss-10 questionnaire Stress levels were quantified using the Persian version of PSS-10 (α=0.85), administered via OSCE.
Time frame: 1 day
BLS knowledge
Basic life support knowledge To assess students' knowledge and clinical reasoning in mechanical ventilation, a researcher-developed, mixed-format questionnaire was used. The tool included 20 items such as multiple-choice questions, clinical scenarios, calculation-based items (e.g., RSBI, ventilator settings), and graphic interpretation tasks. Content areas covered ventilator modes, complications, alarm settings, ABG analysis, and weaning criteria, designed in alignment with recent guidelines including the American Heart Association (2023). Content validity was confirmed by six experts in critical care and nursing education (CVI ≥ 0.8). A pilot test with 30 final-year students demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α= 0.84). The questionnaire was administered before and after the intervention in both study groups to evaluate learning outcomes.
Time frame: 1 day
Plan to share: Undecided
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Torbat Heydariyeh University of Medical Sciences