Longitudinal variation of correlations between different components of assessment within a medical school.

Background: An assessment program should be inclusive and ensure that the various components of medical knowledge, clinical skills, and professionalism are assessed. The level and the variation over time in the strength of the correlation between these components of assessment is still a matter of study. Based on the meaningful learning theory and the integrated learning theory, we hypothesize that these components increase their connections during the medical school course. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data collected for a 10-year period in one medical school. We included students from the 3rd to 6th year of medical school from 2011 to 2021. Three assessment components were addressed: Knowledge, Clinical Skills, and Professionalism. For data analysis, Pearson correlation coefficients (R) and R² were calculated to study the correlation between variables and a z-test on Fisher's r-to-z was used to determine the differences between correlation coefficients. Results: 949 medical students were included in the study. The correlation between Clinical Skills and Professionalism showed a medium to strong association (Pearson's R ranging from 0.485 to 0.734), while the correlation between Knowledge and Professionalism was weaker but exhibited a steady evolution with Pearson's R fluctuating between 0.075 and 0.218. The Knowledge and Clinical Skills correlation became statistically significant from 2013 onwards and peaking at Pearson's R of 0.440 for the cohort spanning 2016–2019. We also revealed a strengthening of correlations between Professionalism and Clinical Skills from the beginning to the end of clinical training, but not with the knowledge component. Conclusions: This analysis contributes to our understanding of the dynamics of correlations of different assessment components within an institution and provides a framework for how they interact and influence each other. Trial registration: This study was not a clinical trial, but a retrospective observational study, without health care interventions. Nevertheless, we provide herein the number of the study as submitted to the Ethics committee – CEICVS 146/2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]