Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are a viable assessment tool for testing pharmacy legal concepts, and to compare performance across OSCE and written assessments while exploring student and examiner perspectives.
Methods
A convergent mixed-methods study was conducted with final-year pharmacy undergraduates completing a legal OSCE station and a short-answer written legal examination. Quantitative analyses compared criterion-level OSCE performance across four legal domains and examined association with written examination scores. Qualitative analyses of student reflections and examiner comments used framework analysis mapped to activity theory.
Key findings
Data were available for 272 students. Across legal domains, students more frequently achieved a correct ethical‑legal response than a correct justification or appropriate follow-up advice. The association between legal OSCE scores and legal written examination scores within domains was not statistically significant; however, students in the top decile for one modality were more likely to perform strongly in the other. Reflections highlighted that simulated assessments demanded on-the-spot problem-solving, personalized communication, and time management, and were perceived as more stressful yet more authentic and rewarding.
Conclusions
OSCEs are a practical and effective way to assess students’ ability to apply legal concepts within pharmacy education. Because OSCEs take place in a distinct, practice-oriented environment, they serve as a complementary assessment rather than a replacement for traditional written legal exams. They offer the added benefit of evaluating students’ reasoning, justification, and communication skills under time pressure conditions that mirror real professional practice.