Logo do repositório

Reliability across content areas in progress tests assessing medical knowledge: a Brazilian cross-sectional study with implications for medical education assessments

dc.contributor.authorHamamoto Filho, Pedro Tadao [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorHashimoto, Miriam [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorLima, Alba Regina de Abreu
dc.contributor.authorDiehl, Leandro Arthur
dc.contributor.authorCosta, Neide Tomimura
dc.contributor.authorRehder, Patrícia Moretti
dc.contributor.authorYarak, Samira
dc.contributor.authorde Andrade, Maria Cristina
dc.contributor.authorHafner, Maria de Lourdes Marmorato Botta
dc.contributor.authorRibeiro, Zilda Maria Tosta
dc.contributor.authorMoriguti, Júlio César
dc.contributor.authorBicudo, Angélica Maria
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.contributor.institutionFaculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto (FAMERP)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.contributor.institutionFaculdade de Medicina de Marília (FAMEMA)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-29T18:58:13Z
dc.date.issued2024-01-01
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Brazilian medical schools equitably divide their medical education assessments into five content areas: internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, and public health. However, this division does not follow international patterns and may threaten the examinations’ reliability and validity. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability indices of the content areas of serial, cross-institutional progress test examinations. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: This was an analytical, observational, and cross-sectional study conducted at nine public medical schools (mainly from the state of São Paulo) with progress test examinations conducted between 2017 and 2023. METHODS: The examinations covered the areas of basic sciences, internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, and public health. We calculated reliability indices using Cronbach’s α, which indicates the internal consistency of a test. We used simple linear regressions to analyze temporal trends. RESULTS: The results showed that the Cronbach’s α for basic sciences and internal medicine presented lower values, whereas gynecology, obstetrics, and public health presented higher values. After changes in the number of items and the exclusion of basic sciences as a separate content area, internal medicine ranked highest in 2023. Individually, all content areas except pediatrics remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining an equitable division in assessment content may lead to suboptimal results in terms of assessment reliability, especially for internal medicine. Therefore, content sampling of medical knowledge for general assessments should be reappraised.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartament of Neurology Psychology and Psychiatry Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), SP
dc.description.affiliationDepartament of Pediatrics Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), SP
dc.description.affiliationDepartament of Molecular Biology Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto (FAMERP), SP
dc.description.affiliationDepartament of Internal Medicine Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL), PR
dc.description.affiliationDepartament of Tocogynecology Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), SP
dc.description.affiliationDepartament of Dermatology Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), SP
dc.description.affiliationDepartament of Pediatrics Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), SP
dc.description.affiliationAcademic Assessment Center Faculdade de Medicina de Marília (FAMEMA), SP
dc.description.affiliationDepartament of Internal Medicine Universidade de São Paulo (USP), SP
dc.description.affiliationDepartamentof Pediatrics Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), SP
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartament of Neurology Psychology and Psychiatry Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), SP
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartament of Pediatrics Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), SP
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1516-3180.2023.0291.R1.13052024
dc.identifier.citationSao Paulo Medical Journal, v. 142, n. 6, 2024.
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/1516-3180.2023.0291.R1.13052024
dc.identifier.issn1516-3180
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85199015915
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11449/301434
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofSao Paulo Medical Journal
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectEducation, medical
dc.subjectEducational measurement.Reliability
dc.subjectInternal medicine
dc.subjectMedical education assessments
dc.subjectProgress test
dc.titleReliability across content areas in progress tests assessing medical knowledge: a Brazilian cross-sectional study with implications for medical education assessmentsen
dc.typeArtigopt
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationa3cdb24b-db92-40d9-b3af-2eacecf9f2ba
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoverya3cdb24b-db92-40d9-b3af-2eacecf9f2ba
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-6436-9307[1]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-6969-9161[2]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-4332-4059[3]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-9958-7213[4]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-6624-2043[5]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-4530-1109[6]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-5657-6645[7]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-4519-0613[8]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-5471-4434[9]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-7368-3154[10]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0001-5499-3552[11]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-3043-5147[12]
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Medicina, Botucatupt

Arquivos