ObjectiveConduct a scoping review of medical student competency assessment research to provide a reference for constructing a scientific, practical, and feasible assessment system. MethodsThe search was conducted in CNKI, SinoMed, WanFang Data, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases. The time limit was set from the inception to June 2025. A scope review was conducted based on Arksey and O’Malley’s framework of scope definition review methods. ResultsA total of 31 studies were included, involving 13 theoretical, 6 empirical, and 12 mixed-methods. These studies reported on mainstream competency assessment methods in medical education, such as the objective structured clinical examination, 360-degree evaluation, mini-clinical assessment (MCA), multiple-choice questions (MCQs), and direct observation of procedural skills. Studies on competency model construction primarily used the Miller pyramid, Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, and the current physician competency consensus as core theoretical frameworks. Mixed research methods, such as literature analysis, behavioral event interviews, the Delphi method, and questionnaire surveys, were frequently employed. Domestic competency models primarily focused on "knowledge, skills, and professionalism" as core indicator elements, with the five-point Likert scale being the predominant format for questionnaire items (8 items, 57.1%). Although research reliability validation was relatively well-established, More than half of the studies (7 items, 53.8%) did not report validity metrics. Conclusion While theoretical foundations in competency research are well-established and modeling methodologies are diverse, current assessment methods face limitations, and a lack of uniformity persists in the core elements of competency models. Competency models developed domestically and internationally exhibit significant differences in dimension categorization and item quantity.
Objective To construct a scientific and systematic evaluation index system for labor literacy among medical undergraduates, to provide references for the implementation and management of labor education in medical schools, and to promote the deep integration of medical education and labor education. Methods Computerized literature retrieval was performed in China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data, and VIP databases, PubMed, and Web of Science, as well as relevant documents. The retrieval time frame covered from the establishment of each database to June 1, 2025. Based on Marxist labor theory, the Iceberg Model, and the Onion Model, an initial pool of indicator items was established through literature analysis. The Delphi method was employed for two rounds of expert correspondence, inviting experts to score and screen the indicators from July to August 2025. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 26.0 to assess expert engagement, authority coefficient, and the degree of opinion concentration and coordination. Results A total of 15 experts were included. Two rounds of correspondence consultation were conducted. The effective questionnaire response rates for both rounds of correspondence were 100%. The expert authority coefficients were 0.82 and 0.83, respectively. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was significant (P<0.05), and all variation coefficients were less than 0.25, indicating converging expert opinions. The final evaluation system was composed of 4 first-level indicators, 8 second-level indicators, and 18 third-level indicators. Conclusions The evaluation index system for labor literacy among medical undergraduates combines theoretical rigor with the characteristics of medical education, providing a scientific tool for the assessment of labor literacy. Further empirical research is needed to validate its reliability and validity.