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

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