PURPOSE
Medical curricula increasingly integrate basic and clinical sciences,
challenging traditional assessment models. Our institution’s integrated
approach has relied on Progress Examinations to monitor incremental knowledge
growth over two years. However, Progress Tests do not evaluate mastery of
recently taught objectives. To address this gap, we developed the Integrative
Basic Science Assessment (iBSA), designed to measure short-term learning of
basic science content. This poster presents an evaluation of the reliability
of iBSA and its relationship to Progress Test performance in first-year
medical students.
 
METHODS
We analyzed five iBSA assessments administered between Fall 2024 and Spring
2025 for the 2024 matriculating class (N = 188), each containing 50 MCQs.
Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha and standardized alpha
coefficients overall and by subcategory. Item difficulty and discrimination
indices were calculated, and the Rasch model was applied to assess the
alignment between student ability and item difficulty. External validity was
examined using Pearson correlations between iBSA and NBME CAS test scores for
the same cohort.
 
RESULTS
Five iBSA exams administered across the academic year demonstrated
acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.574–0.767). Reliability varied by
discipline, with Anatomy/Embryology and Histology showing higher consistency
(? ? 0.58), while Biochemistry and Genetics were lower (? < 0.30).
Correlation analysis indicated that iBSA scores align with Progress Test
performance (r = 0.24–0.53, p < 0.01), supporting its validity as a
complementary assessment tool.
 
CONCLUSION
iBSA is a feasible and reliable method for assessing short-term learning in
integrated medical education. It complements progress testing by offering
granular insights into student achievement of specific objectives, informing
both learners and faculty.