Structured viva shows positive significant correlations with standard assessment tools (MCQs, OSCE, structured theory exam) while traditional viva does not correlate significantly with the structured theory exam¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2026: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 Structured viva correlates significantly with MCQs (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) and with MCQs and OSCE (0.48 to 0.51). → Abuzied Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan 2023 q2 i3 Correlation with structured theory exam is significant for structured viva (r = 0.442, p = 0.001) but not significant for traditional viva (r = 0.202, p = 0.151). → Abuzied Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan 2023

Evidence¶

Abuzied Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan 2023¶

Abuzied Abdelhamid Ibrahim Hassan, Nabag Wisal Omer Mohamed. (2023). Structured viva validity, reliability, and acceptability as an assessment tool in health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04524-6

q2 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

Review of validity studies: three studies estimated validity by correlation with criterion variables, showing "a highly significant correlation coefficient (r = 0.52, p < 0.01)" with MCQs, and correlations of 0.48 to 0.51 with MCQs and OSCE. The traditional viva correlation was not significant.

"A positive highly significant correlation (r = 0.442, p = 0.001) was seen between marks scored in structured viva and structured theory exam while it was not significant (r = 0.202, p = 0.151) for the marks of traditional viva and structured theory exam"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Pooled learner acceptability of structured viva across 12 studies is 79.8% with high heterogeneity (I² = 93.506) — related
• Oral exam scores correlate only modestly with written exams and OSCEs (r = 0.10–0.74), suggesting oral exams assess distinct skills — a broader claim this one bears on
• Structured viva shows significant inter-rater reliability between examiner pairs (r = 0.78 to 0.91) and high inter-rater agreement (86.7%) — related
• Structured viva shows higher internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha 0.75–0.80) than traditional viva (alpha 0.50) — related