Search

Introduction: There is an expectation that healthcare professionals display competence in teaching, assessment and providing feedback. Development begins with formative peer‐assisted learning and teaching in the undergraduate environment. Using peers or near‐peers (in this case having 1 year more experience than the examination cohort) to provide assessment in summative exams remains unexplored. This study investigates how the use of near‐peers compares to marking by academic staff in a summative OSCE. Materials and Methods: BDS4 Peer assessors (PAs) developed an OSCE question and marking schedule. Each PA (n = 3) was paired with an academic staff assessor (ASA) (n = 3). Peer and academic marked the candidates independently. Two years later, the process was repeated on the same cohort of candidates with the PA now 1‐year post qualification. Statistical analysis compared the scores awarded by PA during each timeframe and against the marks awarded by the ASA. Results: During round 1, 28 students (62.2%) were awarded the same score by PA and ASA. On 17 occasions, there was a discrepancy (37.8%). Bias was skewed in favour of PA scoring higher (mean difference of differences −0.0667). During round 2, 27 students (55.1%) were awarded the same score by PA and ASA. On 22 occasions (44.9%), there was a discrepancy. Bias was skewed in favour of ASA scoring higher (mean difference of differences 0.0612). Discussion: Levels of agreement between PA and ASA are strong. Our results show PA mark more leniently as undergraduates and less leniently at 1‐year post graduation. Conclusions: Peer assessors are able to write OSCE stations, produce marking schemes and effectively assess their near‐peers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]