Presentation Blocks: 03-22-2018 - Thursday - 11:00 AM - 12:15 PM

Title: Students Prefer First Person View to Static Video From OSCES


Stuart Schrader (Presenter)
Indiana University School of Dentistry

David Zahl, Indiana University School of Dentistry
Paul Edwards, Indiana University School of Dentistry
Gerardo Maupome, Indiana University
Ted Parks, Indiana University School of Dentistry
Cindy Budyn, Indiana University Purdue University


Objectives: How do 3rdyr dental students perceive the effectiveness of assessing interpersonal communication skills during an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCEs) in (1) Standardized Patient (SP) Operated Smart Glasses vs Static Camera Videos? and (2) in SP vs Student Operated Smart Glass Videos?

Methods: We compared responses from 23 3rd year DS in 2016 with 59 3rd yrs in 2017 using a 15 item VARES (verbal, paraverbal, nonverbal) scale, including 4 qualitative questions analyzed using a grounded constructivist theory approach

Results: Preliminary results indicate increased effectiveness in assessing nonverbal communication via SP Operated Glasses (mean=22.40) as opposed to a Static Camera (mean=16.59). SP Operated Glasses vs Static Camera was effective for eye contact (91.5% vs 29.1%) and facial expressions (91.5% vs 38.2%). Students reported increased effectiveness in observing paraverbal and verbal communication using Student Operated Glasses (mean =24.26 paraverbal; mean = 23.87 verbal) vs SP Operated Glasses (mean= 19.68 paraverbal; mean = 20.68 verbal). However, students report more effectiveness in observing nonverbal communication using SP Operated Glasses (mean = 22.40) vs Student Operated-Glasses (mean = 19.78).

Preliminary thematic analysis found: (1) First Person View (FPV) increased student’s ability to effectively observe facial expressions, eye contact, and other microexpressions; however, the static camera provided better student patient assessment; and (2) Student Perspective FPV was preferred over the SP Perspective because eye contact and facial expressions were limited by the SP wearing glasses.

Conclusions: Findings support the literature in that users of wearables: 1) find objects of interest to be centered, large scaled, and unobstructed and 2) eye contact and facial expressions most interested students because FPV highlights these communicative cues.

The study’s generalizability was limited due to smaller sample sizes. Future work should compare SPs and students using various forms of newer video technology like 360 in viewing verbal, para-verbal and nonverbal communicative interactions during OSCEs.