Objective:To construct a medical student professionalism evaluation system based on the Delphi method and provide a scientific tool for evaluation of medical education and clinical practice.Methods:Based on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists, and the Chinese Resident Core Competency Framework, the indicators were selected through two rounds of Delphi consultation with 11 experts. The final medical professionalism evaluation system included 29 indicators in eight categories: professional ethics, dedication, humanistic qualities, systematic improvement ability, the process of medical professionalism, personal growth and help-seeking, patient-centered care, and teamwork. SPSS 29.0 software was used for data analysis, including descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation), analytic hierarchy process to determine the weights, and calculation of Cronbach's α coefficient, Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficient (0.929), and scale-level content validity index. The significance level was set at α=0.05. Results:The expert authority coefficients for the two rounds of consultation were 0.863 and 0.867, and the variations of Kendall coefficient of coordination were all <25.00%. The final evaluation system contained eight first-level indexes (the highest weight was 14.362% for professional ethics) and 29 second-level indicators. The system demonstrated high reliability and validity (Cronbach's α coefficient=0.912, scale-level content validity index/average=0.910). Conclusions:The professionalism evaluation system for medical students constructed in this study is scientific and practical, and can provide a reference for the quality assessment of medical education. The high reliability and validity of the evaluation system suggest that it is suitable for clinical practice and teaching feedback, though further localization to align with Chinese characteristics is necessary for further refinement.

Objective:To construct a medical student professionalism evaluation system based on the Delphi method and provide a scientific tool for evaluation of medical education and clinical practice.Methods:Based on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists, and the Chinese Resident Core Competency Framework, the indicators were selected through two rounds of Delphi consultation with 11 experts. The final medical professionalism evaluation system included 29 indicators in eight categories: professional ethics, dedication, humanistic qualities, systematic improvement ability, the process of medical professionalism, personal growth and help-seeking, patient-centered care, and teamwork. SPSS 29.0 software was used for data analysis, including descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation), analytic hierarchy process to determine the weights, and calculation of Cronbach's α coefficient, Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficient (0.929), and scale-level content validity index. The significance level was set at α=0.05. Results:The expert authority coefficients for the two rounds of consultation were 0.863 and 0.867, and the variations of Kendall coefficient of coordination were all <25.00%. The final evaluation system contained eight first-level indexes (the highest weight was 14.362% for professional ethics) and 29 second-level indicators. The system demonstrated high reliability and validity (Cronbach's α coefficient=0.912, scale-level content validity index/average=0.910). Conclusions:The professionalism evaluation system for medical students constructed in this study is scientific and practical, and can provide a reference for the quality assessment of medical education. The high reliability and validity of the evaluation system suggest that it is suitable for clinical practice and teaching feedback, though further localization to align with Chinese characteristics is necessary for further refinement.