Observational studySao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2024
Reliability across content areas in progress tests assessing medical knowledge: a Brazilian cross-sectional study with implications for medical education assessments.
Observational study in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Lower Performance of Artificial Intelligence on Answering Undergraduate Medical Education Multiple-Choice Questions.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Progress test in the undergraduate nursing course at a São Paulo public university: progressive knowledge gain reflects curricular characteristics.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBrazilian 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.
objectiveTo 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsMaintaining 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.