ArticleJournal of educational evaluation for health professions2026
Developing clinical skills assessment modules for traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine in Korea: a participatory action research study.
Article in Journal of educational evaluation for health professions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to develop pilot clinical skills assessment (CSA) modules for Korean medicine-specific procedures and to examine their preliminary appropriateness, perceived necessity, and feasibility as a foundation for future licensing-related assessment development.
methodsA participatory action research framework, supplemented by qualitative interviews, was used to develop 4 CSA modules-acupuncture, Chuna manual therapy, pulse diagnosis, and constitutional diagnosis-in collaboration with expert evaluators, students, and standardized patients. The modules were implemented as formative examinations for third-year Korean medicine students, after which semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain feedback on module content, implementation processes, and scoring procedures. Each module was also reviewed using the RUMBA checklist (Realistic, Understandable, Measurable, Behavioral, and Achievable), together with ratings of perceived necessity and feasibility for possible future use in licensing-related assessment. Interview data were analyzed inductively at the level of individual responses and then compared across modules and participant groups.
resultsQualitative analysis yielded 3 themes: content and scoring criteria, physical environment or simulators, and education or training. Participants emphasized the need to make key aspects of performance more observable, improve authenticity through simulators or task trainers, and strengthen the capacity of scoring systems to distinguish between levels of student performance. Across all modules, mean RUMBA scores were high in the understandable, behavioral, and achievable domains, whereas measurability was more problematic, especially for pulse diagnosis.
conclusionThese pilot findings clarify both the strengths and the limitations of Korean medicine-specific CSA modules. The modules received favorable ratings for understandability and achievability, whereas lower ratings for measurability and realism identified priorities for refinement before wider use. This study provides preliminary guidance for the continued development and broader evaluation of Korean medicine-specific performance assessments.
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.