A Scoping Review of OSCE Examiner Training Methods in UK Medical Education: Variability, Practices, and Gaps in Evidence

Abstract Background The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) remains one of the most widely used approaches for assessing clinical competence in medical education. Although OSCEs are highly structured, assessment outcomes depend substantially on examiner judgement, making examiner training a critical component of assessment quality. Effective training has the potential to strengthen the validity, reliability, and fairness of assessment decisions by supporting consistent interpretation and application of assessment criteria. Despite its recognised importance, there is limited consensus regarding the optimal design and delivery of OSCE examiner training. This scoping review aimed to map and synthesise the literature relating to examiner training methods reported within medical education. Methods A scoping review was undertaken to identify and characterise published literature relating to OSCE examiner training. Electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and the Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC) for studies published between 2003 and 2023. Eligible studies describing examiner training approaches within medical education were included. Data were charted and analysed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis approach to identify recurring patterns and characteristics of training interventions. Results Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Examiner training approaches were predominantly delivered through either face-to-face or online modalities. Across the literature, a broadly consistent three-stage training structure emerged, comprising examiner role orientation, instructional or calibration activities, and post-training support. Training commonly incorporated marking guidance, checklists, rating scales, and performance calibration exercises designed to promote scoring consistency. Face-to-face approaches facilitated discussion, calibration, and individualised support but required greater resource investment. Online approaches offered flexibility, accessibility, and standardisation but were limited by reduced opportunities for interaction and collaborative calibration. Considerable variation was observed in training content, duration, timing, and evaluation methods. Conclusions The evidence base relating to OSCE examiner training remains limited and heterogeneous. While face-to-face and online approaches represent the predominant training modalities, there is little evidence of a standardised or theoretically informed approach to examiner preparation. The emergence of a common three-stage training structure suggests potential foundations for future programme development. Further research is needed to establish evidence-informed best practices and strengthen the validity and defensibility of examiner judgements in high-stakes clinical assessment.