Development and Validation of a Competency‐Based OSCE Model in Undergraduate Periodontology Using Messick's Framework
Vivek Kumar Bains, Ruchi Srivastava, Sunakshi Soi, Anil Kumar Jha, Rhythm BainsABSTRACT
Background
Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is widely recognized as a robust method for assessing clinical competence in health professions education. However, validated OSCE models in periodontology remain limited.
Aim
To develop and establish the validity of a structured competency‐based OSCE assessment model in periodontology, using Messick's unified validity framework, and to evaluate its acceptability and perceived educational utility among dental interns.
Materials and Methods
A multi‐phase study with an embedded cross‐sectional evaluation was conducted from 2024 to 2026 at a tertiary dental teaching institution. Phase 1 involved structured development of a six‐station OSCE model mapped to competency domains and Miller's pyramid. Phase 2 comprised iterative expert validation ( n = 13) using a 4‐point Likert scale, with calculation of item‐level (I‐CVI) and scale‐level (S‐CVI/Ave) content validity indices. Response‐process and internal‐structure evidence were examined using examiner calibration, inter‐examiner reliability and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), with a structured examiner calibration protocol. Phase 3 included a cross‐sectional, questionnaire‐based assessment of participants' perceptions ( n = 79), evaluating acceptability, fairness, feasibility, and perceived educational usefulness. The validated questionnaire included 38 closed‐ended Likert‐scale items across 8 domains and 2 open‐ended questions, and was digitally distributed to collect quantitative and qualitative feedback. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi‐square tests, Cramer's V, and Mann–Whitney U tests.
Results
Participants' perceptions were highly favorable, with >85% agreement across the domains related to clarity, fairness, curriculum alignment, and educational utility. Mean domain scores ranged from 4.08 to 4.21, indicating high agreement, except for the stress and experience domains, which showed lower scores (3.59 ± 0.66). No statistically significant associations were found between demographic variables and overall perceptions. However, gender‐based comparisons showed a statistically significant difference in the stress domain ( p < 0.05). Qualitative thematic analyses identified time allocation and examination‐related stress as the main areas requiring refinement.
Conclusion
The present OSCE assessment tool, demonstrated favorable evidence across content validity, response process, and internal structure, along with high acceptability and perceived educational relevance. Further studies incorporating objective performance outcomes, external validation measures, and longitudinal evaluation are needed to establish its broader educational impact.