The randomised pilot enrolled 20 third-year medical students participating in a peer-led mock OSCE. Nine were allocated to receive individual feedback after each station, while 11 received group feedback at the end of the OSCE circuit in small groups. Researchers measured self-reported confidence immediately before the OSCE and immediately after feedback using a five-point Likert scale.

Anxiety was measured at the same two points on a 10-point visual analogue scale. Following the feedback session, participants also completed Likert-scale questionnaires assessing perceived feedback quality and their evaluation of the mock OSCE setup. Both groups showed favourable within-group changes.

In the individual-feedback arm, median confidence increased from 2 to 4, with a reported p-value of 0.007, and median anxiety decreased from 8 to 4, with p = 0.027. In the group-feedback arm, median confidence rose from 3 to 4, with p = 0.009, while median anxiety fell from 7 to 5, with p = 0.036. These measurements indicate that confidence increased and anxiety decreased within both groups across the study period.

The supplied results do not provide the corresponding between-group significance tests needed to determine whether the magnitude of those changes differed between individual and group feedback. Perceptions of feedback quality nevertheless pointed in the same direction. Participants rated individual feedback more highly for clarity, specificity and overall usefulness.

The thematic analysis identified a preference for personalised feedback, but participants also described advantages associated with group discussion. The authors therefore proposed that a hybrid approach combining elements of both formats might optimise the educational value of post-OSCE feedback. That hybrid model was not tested as an intervention in the pilot, so the proposal remains a hypothesis for future evaluation rather than a demonstrated result.

Several features limit how far the findings can be generalised. The sample was small, the study occurred within one peer-led mock OSCE, and all reported outcomes were self-reported measures of confidence, anxiety, perceived feedback quality and the assessment setup. Baseline median confidence and anxiety also differed numerically between the two small groups, although random allocation reduces the risk that students consciously chose their feedback condition.

The authors used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for within-group changes, Mann–Whitney U tests for between-group comparisons, and thematic analysis for qualitative data, but the supplied findings do not establish a definitive advantage for either format. The pilot thus offers preliminary evidence that both approaches were associated with better confidence and anxiety reports, alongside stronger student ratings for individual feedback, and identifies a combined feedback model for further study.

Subject of Research: Randomised pilot comparison of individual and group feedback in a peer-led mock OSCE for third-year medical students

Article Title: Individual versus group feedback in a peer-led mock OSCE: a randomised pilot study of medical students’ confidence, anxiety and perceived feedback quality

Article References: Yaqub, A., Peter, K., Yaqub, S., Soor, S., Roka, O., Zhang, J., & Tuckwell, L. (2026). Individual versus group feedback in a peer-led mock OSCE: a randomised pilot study of medical students’ confidence, anxiety and perceived feedback quality. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10177-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10177-y

Keywords: medical education, OSCE, peer feedback, individual feedback, group feedback, student confidence, student anxiety, feedback quality, randomised pilot study, Individual, versus, group