METHODS: We followed the guidelines suggested by Whetten for constructing a theoretical model for framework development. There were four phases in the model development. In the first phase, different literature review methods were used, and additional students' perspectives were collected through focus group discussions. Then, using the data, we constructed the theoretical model in the second phase. In the third phase, we validated the newly developed model and its related guidelines. Finally, we performed response process validation of the model with a group of medical teachers.

RESULTS: The developed systematic assessment resilience framework (SAR) promotes four constructs: self-control, management, engagement, and growth, through five phases of assessment: assessment experience, assessment direction, assessment preparation, examiner focus, and student reflection. Each phase contains a number of practical guidelines to promote resilience. We rigorously triangulated each approach with its theoretical foundations and evaluated it on the basis of its content and process. The model showed high levels of content and face validity.

METHODS: This study employed a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-testing. It involved the training of course coordinators in implementing the SAR framework and its integration into the daily learning activities. Fourth-year medical students were assessed before and after the intervention using standardized measures of resilience, anxiety, depression, burnout, and academic stress. Data were analyzed using quantitative methods and thematic analysis for qualitative feedback.

RESULTS: Post-intervention, students demonstrated a significant increase in resilience scores (p  0.05). Qualitative feedback of the course coordinators highlighted an improved learning environment, increased coping strategies, and a more supportive academic culture.