Task-specific checklists, holistic rubrics, and analytic rubrics are often used for performance assessments. We examined what factors evaluators consider important in holistic scoring of clinical performance assessment, and compared the usefulness of applying holistic and analytic rubrics respectively, and analytic rubrics in addition to task-specific checklists based on traditional standards. We compared the usefulness of a holistic rubric versus an analytic rubric in effectively measuring the clinical skill performances of 126 third-year medical students who participated in a clinical performance assessment conducted by Pusan National University School of Medicine. We conducted a questionnaire survey of 37 evaluators who used all three evaluation methods—holistic rubric, analytic rubric, and task-specific checklist—for each student. The relationship between the scores on the three evaluation methods was analyzed using Pearson’s correlation. Inter-rater agreement was analyzed by Kappa index. The effect of holistic and analytic rubric scores on the task-specific checklist score was analyzed using multiple regression analysis. Evaluators perceived accuracy and proficiency to be major factors in objective structured clinical examinations evaluation, and history taking and physical examination to be major factors in clinical performance examinations evaluation. Holistic rubric scores were highly related to the scores of the task-specific checklist and analytic rubric. Relatively low agreement was found in clinical performance examinations compared to objective structured clinical examinations. Meanwhile, the holistic and analytic rubric scores explained 59.1% of the task-specific checklist score in objective structured clinical examinations and 51.6% in clinical performance examinations. The results show the usefulness of holistic and analytic rubrics in clinical performance assessment, which can be used in conjunction with task-specific checklists for more efficient evaluation.

Effective communication between doctors and patients is essential for high-quality healthcare delivery. However, barriers such as time constraints, complex medical terminology, and patients' difficulty articulating symptoms often hinder clear and efficient exchanges. This study aims to enhance patient-doctor communication by introducing a technology-assisted approach that utilizes a graphical interface based on sign values to improve symptom reporting. The proposed system translates patient-reported symptoms into intuitive visual representations, allowing for more precise and structured communication. A structured methodology was applied, including data collection from 74 anonymized patient cases, integration with the Doctor-Aid diagnostic model, and validation against established medical standards. The findings suggest that this approach reduces miscommunication, enhances diagnostic accuracy, and streamlines information exchange between patients and healthcare providers. The study concludes that integrating digital tools into clinical settings can significantly improve communication efficiency and patient outcomes. The practical implications highlight the potential for widespread adoption of graphical communication aids in diverse healthcare settings, ultimately fostering better patient engagement, minimizing errors, and improving the overall quality of care.

한국멀티미디어학회(The Journal of Curriculum Evaluation)