AI-assisted oral exam analysis: Qualitative research tips

According to the PLOS One systematic review published on August 10, 2026, structured oral examinations and technology together improve reliability and fairness. According to the PLOS One review, the authors screened 25, 594 records (search cutoff June 23, 2025) and included 102 studies that informed an evidence-based framework for oral exams.

• 102 studies were included after screening 25, 594 records, with the literature search completed through June 23, 2025, according to PLOS One (published August 10, 2026).
• 56.9% of included studies evaluated structured oral examinations (SOEs), and SOEs had a median Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75, according to PLOS One.
• Examiner variability was reported in 66.7% of studies and student anxiety in 41.2% of studies, according to PLOS One.
• Technology appeared in 39.2% of cases (video, virtual platforms, digital scoring), and the PLOS One authors recommended AI-assisted scoring and hybrid delivery as part of their framework.
• As the PLOS One conclusions state, "Standardized oral examinations, supported by technology, offer fair and reliable assessments."

The PLOS One review systematically synthesized evidence on oral examinations by screening 25, 594 records and including 102 eligible studies (search through June 23, 2025), according to Torab-Miandoab et al. (PLOS One, August 10, 2026).

According to PLOS One, the included studies spanned medicine (70.6%), nursing (8.8%), dentistry and allied fields, with a median sample size of about 80 participants per study and an interquartile range of 30–150.

According to PLOS One, structured oral examinations (SOEs) dominated (56.9%), produced higher internal consistency (median Cronbach’s alpha 0.75), and improved inter-rater agreement (ICC range 0.47–0.82) when combined with examiner training and standardization.

Structured oral exams require deliberate design choices: according to PLOS One, assessment design, examiner calibration, and standardized scoring were the most-cited requirements for improved outcomes.

According to PLOS One, examiner training appeared in 60.8% of studies and standardization in 56.9% of studies, which implies assessment teams should budget time and resources for rater calibration sessions and pilot testing.

According to PLOS One, hybrid and virtual delivery were comparable to in-person formats on scores and pass rates (no significant differences reported), therefore educators should include accessibility and connectivity codes in qualitative evaluations to capture equity effects.

According to the PLOS One review (published August 10, 2026), structured oral examinations combined with examiner training and technology produce fairer and more reliable assessments, and the review recommends exploring AI-assisted scoring for scalability.

Evidano is an AI-powered qualitative data analysis platform that helps researchers analyze interviews, open-ended surveys, and documents, and Evidano can be used to transcribe, code, and visualize oral exam data to implement the PLOS One framework.

If you run oral exams and want to pilot AI-enabled qualitative analysis, start by collecting recordings and rubrics from a representative sample, then use automated transcription, a reproducible codebook, and cross-segment frequency analysis to test interventions.

Try a hands-on workflow today, or Try Evidano for free to ingest transcripts, run thematic and frequency analyses, and share reproducible evidence with your assessment committee.