Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Jul 25;23(1):531.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-023-04524-6.

Structured viva validity, reliability, and acceptability as an assessment tool in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan Abuzied  1 , Wisal Omer Mohamed Nabag  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Structured viva validity, reliability, and acceptability as an assessment tool in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan Abuzied et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: The viva, or traditional oral examination, is a process where the examiners ask questions and the candidate answers them. While traditional viva has many disadvantages, including subjectivity, low validity, and low reliability, it is advantageous for assessing knowledge, clinical reasoning, and self-confidence, which cannot be assessed by written tests. In order to overcome these disadvantages, structured viva was invented and is claimed to be highly valid, reliable, and acceptable, but this was not confirmed by an overall systematic review or meta-analysis of the studies. The research aims to investigate the studies to reach an overall decision regarding the quality of structured viva as an assessment tool according to the agreed standards in medical education in terms of validity, reliability, and acceptability.

Methods: This systematic review was done following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) website reviews, Google Scholars, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for any article addressing the research questions from inception to December 2022. Data analysis was done by the OpenMeta Analyst open-source app, version Windows 10.

Results: A total of 1385 studies were identified. Of them, 24 were included in the review. Three of the reviewed studies showed higher validity of structured viva by a positive linear correlation coefficient compared with MCQs, MCQs and Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), and structured theory exam. In the reviewed studies, the reliability of structured viva was high by Cronbach alpha α = 0.80 and α = 0.75 in two different settings, while it was low α = 0.50 for the traditional viva. In the meta-analysis, structured viva was found to be acceptable by overall acceptability of (79.8%, P < 0.001) out of all learners who participated in structured viva as examinees at different levels in health professions education using the available numeric data of 12 studies. The heterogeneity of the data was high (I^2 = 93.506, P < 0.001) thus the analysis was done using the binary random-effects model.

Conclusion: Structured viva or structured oral examination has high levels of validity, reliability, and acceptability as an assessment tool in health professions education compared to traditional viva.

Keywords: Acceptability; Health professions education; Reliability; Structured viva; Validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow of study selection and analysis through different phases of systematic review and meta-analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot analysis of the acceptability of learners of structured viva as an assessment tool
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Madhukumar, Suwarna MB, Pavithra NS, Amrita Conventional viva and structured viva—comparison and perception of students. Indian J Public Health Res Dev. 2022;13(2):167–72.
    1. Davis MH, KarunathilakeIJMt. The place of the oral examination in today’s assessment systems. 2005;27(4):294–7. - PubMed
    1. Oakley B, Hencken C. Oral examination assessment practices:effectiveness and change with a first year undergraduate cohort. J Hosp Leis Sport Tour Educ. 2005;4:3–14.
    1. Thomas CS, Mellsop G, Callender K, Crawshaw J, Ellis PM, Hall A, et al. The oral examination: a study of academic and non-academic factors. Med Educ. 1993;27(5):433–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.1993.tb00297.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tutton PJM, Glasgow EF. Reliability and predictive capacity of examinations in anatomy and improvement in the reliability of viva voce (oral) examinations by the use of a structured rating system. Clin Anatomy: Official J Am Association Clin Anatomists Br Association Clin Anatomists. 1989;21:29–34. doi: 10.1002/ca.980020105. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources