The Differential Impact of High-Stakes Versus Routine OSCE Stations on Nursing Students' Stress Levels and Clinical Competency: An Experimental Study
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.
Study Overview
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
-
Torbat Heydarieh, Iran
- Torbat Heydarieh university of Medical Sciences
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Child
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- The inclusion criteria included nursing students in their eighth semester who had given their consent to participate in the study
Exclusion Criteria:
- Exclusion criteria were nursing students who were unwilling to participate, absence in any of the intervention sessions, and those who, for reasons such as acute stress, did not have the necessary mental or psychological readiness to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation skills. Additionally, students taking medications that could attenuate the stress response (e.g., beta-blockers, central nervous system depressants) were also excluded.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Other
- Allocation: N/A
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: None (Open Label)
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Other: Control-Group
There is routine and non-stakes OSCE in the control-group
|
In this intervention, students had to pass more challenging OSCE in comparison with contol-group
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Stress of students in OSCE exam
Time Frame: 1 day
|
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.
|
1 day
|
|
BLS knowledge
Time Frame: 1 day
|
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.
|
1 day
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Other Study ID Numbers
- (IR.THUMS.REC.1402.14026)
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.