Assessment architecture, scoring, and evidence of quality in objective structured clinical examinations in dental education: a scoping review.

Abstract

This scoping review mapped the design, scoring, implementation, and quality assurance of objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) in dental education. The review followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed/MEDLINE, ERIC, Embase, and LILACS/BVS were searched through July 25, 2026. Of the 940 records identified, 129 full-text reports were assessed and 63 studies were included. The most frequently reported evidence concerned station design, blueprinting, scoring, examiner calibration, reliability, and psychometric performance. Fewer studies examined standard setting, fairness and potential construct-irrelevant variance, classification accuracy, economic feasibility, or the consequences of high-stakes decisions. Virtual and electronic OSCEs supported assessment continuity and structured evaluation of diagnostic reasoning, interpretation, communication, and decision-making; however, they should not be assumed to replace direct observation when technical or psychomotor performance is the main target. The dental OSCE literature now encompasses both isolated station-based examinations and broader assessment systems. Future research should establish which combinations of assessment design, scoring, examiner preparation, psychometric evaluation, fairness analysis, and decision rules provide defensible evidence for specific educational purposes.