Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 5

Summative contribution, examiner variability, and faculty workload of the mini-CEX in an undergraduate orthopedic clerkship

Eşref Selçuk(Trakya Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi)0000-0002-1657-1110
Cem Çopuroğlu(TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-3884-3711
Mert Özcan(TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-2009-1881
Murat Erem(TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-9743-5515
Savaş Yıldırım(TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TIP FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-0677-4720
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-19
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: Mini-CEX scores correlated weakly with the orthopedics practical grade and overall practical module grade, but showed no association with final clerkship grades.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aims: The mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) is widely used for workplace-based assessment, particularly in internal medicine, but its role in surgical clerkships remains less clear.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study evaluated the association between mini-CEX scores and summative performance, examiner-related variability, and the faculty time required for implementation in an undergraduate orthopedic clerkship.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: Mini-CEX scores correlated weakly with the orthopedics practical grade and overall practical module grade, but showed no association with final clerkship grades.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2024-2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Mini-CEX · orthopedic education · examiner variability

Abstract

Aims: The mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) is widely used for workplace-based assessment, particularly in internal medicine, but its role in surgical clerkships remains less clear. This study evaluated the association between mini-CEX scores and summative performance, examiner-related variability, and the faculty time required for implementation in an undergraduate orthopedic clerkship. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 303 fifth-year medical students who completed the Movement System Diseases and Forensic Traumatology Clerkship at Trakya University, Turkiye, during 2024-2025. The orthopedics practical assessment consisted of an evaluation exam, mini-CEX, and an objective structured practical examination. Correlation, regression, and ROC analyses were performed to examine the relationship between assessment components and final grades. Examiner variability, faculty workload, and the estimated effect of removing mini-CEX from grade calculations were also assessed. Results: Mini-CEX scores correlated weakly with the orthopedics practical grade and overall practical module grade, but showed no association with final clerkship grades. In regression analysis, theoretical and practical module scores showed the strongest associations with final performance, whereas mini-CEX showed no significant additional association after accounting for the other assessment components. Implementing mini-CEX for all students required an estimated 76-101 hours of faculty time. Removing mini-CEX from the grading model caused only a 0.09-point change in mean final scores and did not alter pass/fail outcomes. Conclusion: In this high-volume undergraduate orthopedic clerkship, mini-CEX had limited summative value despite its potential formative role. Its potential formative value warrants further investigation, alongside streamlined or digital approaches to improve implementation efficiency.

🔖

Cite This Article

Selçuk, E., Çopuroğlu, C., Özcan, M., Erem, M., Yıldırım, S. (2026). Summative contribution, examiner variability, and faculty workload of the mini-CEX in an undergraduate orthopedic clerkship. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Volume: 9 Issue: 5. https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1978723

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (20)

  1. Kirch SA, Sadofsky MJ. Medical education from a theory-practice-philosophy perspective. Acad Pathol. 2021;8:23742895211010236. doi:10. 1177/23742895211010236
  2. Benbassat J. Role modeling in medical education: the importance of a reflective imitation. Acad Med. 2014;89(4):550-554. doi:10.1097/ACM. 0000000000000189
  3. Inaparthy PK, Sayana MK, Maffulli N. Evolving trauma and orthopedics training in the UK. J Surg Educ. 2013;70(1):104-108. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg. 2012.07.006
  4. Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Arnold GK, Kimball HR. The mini-CEX (clinical evaluation exercise): a preliminary investigation. Ann Intern Med. 1995; 123(10):795-799. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-123-10-199511150-00008
  5. Mortaz Hejri S, Jalili M, Shirazi M, Masoomi R, Nedjat S, Norcini J. The utility of mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):146. doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0539-y
  6. Singh T, Sharma M. Mini-clinical examination (CEX) as a tool for formative assessment. Natl Med J India. 2010;23(2):100-102.
  7. Witheridge A, Ferns G, Scott-Smith W. Revisiting Miller’s pyramid in medical education: the gap between traditional assessment and diagnostic reasoning. Int J Med Educ. 2019;10:191-192. doi:10.5116/ijme. 5d9b.0c37
  8. Frenk J, Chen LC, Chandran L, et al. Challenges and opportunities for educating health professionals after the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet. 2022;400(10362):1539-1556. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02092-X
  9. Zaki HA, Yigit Y, Shaban E, et al. The utility of the mini-clinical evaluation exercise (Mini-CEX) in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the readability, feasibility, and acceptability of mini-CEX utilization. Cureus. 2023; 15(8):e44443. doi:10.7759/cureus.44443
  10. Bashir K, Arshad W, Azad AM, Alfalahi S, Kodumayil A, Elmoheen A. Acceptability and feasibility of mini clinical evaluation exercise (Mini-CEX) in the busy emergency department. Open Access Emerg Med. 2021;13:481-486. doi:10.2147/OAEM.S321161
  11. Schleicher I, Leitner K, Juenger J, et al. Examiner effect on the objective structured clinical exam-a study at five medical schools. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):71. doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0908-1
  12. Walsh K. The costs and utility of the mini-CEX. Med Teach. 2013;35(9): 789. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2013.787139
  13. Martinsen SSS, Espeland T, Berg EAR, Samstad E, Lillebo B, Slørdahl TS. Examining the educational impact of the mini-CEX: a randomised controlled study. BMC Med Educ. 2021;21(1):228. doi:10.1186/s12909-021-02670-3
  14. Devaprasad PS. Introduction of mini clinical evaluation exercise as an assessment tool for M.B.B.S. interns in the Department of Orthopaedics. Indian J Orthop. 2023;57(5):714-717. doi:10.1007/s43465-023-00866-x
  15. Liu R, Li L, Zhou Y, Xiong L. The application of CBL and mind mapping combined with mini-CEX teaching mode in the cultivation of clinical competence of ultrasound residents. PLoS One. 2025;20(7). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327739
  16. Lörwald AC, Lahner FM, Nouns ZM, et al. The educational impact of mini-clinical evaluation exercise (Mini-CEX) and direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) and its association with implementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198009
  17. Wilkinson TJ, Tweed MJ. Deconstructing programmatic assessment. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:191-197. doi:10.2147/AMEP.S144449
  18. Schuwirth L, van der Vleuten C, Durning SJ. What programmatic assessment in medical education can learn from healthcare. Perspect Med Educ. 2017;6(4):211-215. doi:10.1007/s40037-017-0345-1
  19. Schuwirth LWT, Van der Vleuten CPM. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478-485. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2011.565828
  20. Fuentes-Cimma J, Fuentes-López E, Isbej Espósito L, et al. Utility analysis of an adapted mini-CEX WebApp for clinical practice assessment in physiotherapy undergraduate students. Front Educ (Lausanne). 2023;8:943709. doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.943709