ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Challenges in assessing ethical training in contemporary medicine: Psychometric evidence from two retention exams.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the psychometric performance of two retention multiple-choice exams focused on practical ethics, deontology, and professional conduct administered to residents after interactive, in-person courses.
methodsWe analyzed item difficulty (p), corrected point-biserial correlation (r_pb*), and internal consistency (KR-20) under Classical Test Theory. Thematic categories were assigned to each item based on course blueprints and question stems. Two cohorts (Exam I on June 4, 2025; Exam II on September 8, 2025) completed 20-item tests each. Analyses were performed in Excel with verification in Python.
resultsExam I showed KR-20 = 0.61 with a high overall proportion correct (mean p ≈ 0.94), limiting score variance and discrimination (mean r_pb*≈0.28). Exam II exhibited improved reliability (KR-20 = 0.83) and higher mean discrimination (mean r_pb*≈0.52). Although most items in both exams are considered to be easy, in the context of a retention test this pattern is also compatible with efficient incorporation of practical content after teaching, particularly in thematic domains more readily retained by residents. Ceiling effects therefore indicate not only reduced psychometric spread, but also probable high short-term retention in several practical topics; however, items with very high p values still have limited utility for distinguishing between stronger and weaker performers and for identifying content areas that may require reinforcement. Items framed as practical clinical or professional scenarios ‒ especially those involving autonomy and communication, documentation, civil/criminal liability, and relationships with health insurers ‒ showed the strongest discrimination. By contrast, digital ethics and advertising items were generally easy and less discriminative, possibly because these rules were already familiar, more directly memoizable, or presented in especially explicit formats during teaching.
conclusionPsychometric monitoring of short retention exams in practical ethics and deontology supports continuous quality improvement and favors contextualized, case-based items that better differentiate residents in the domain of applicable professional rules and routine ethical-regulatory decisions. Such assessments should be a routine part of ethics curriculum development.
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.