Objectives: Korean medicine requires systematic educational evaluation to ensure the efficacy and safety of its clinical procedures. However, reliable and valid assessment methods for Korean medicine remain underdeveloped. This study employed participatory action research (PAR), engaging students, medical education experts, and standardized patients, to develop assessment modules for two treatment procedures (Acupuncture and Chuna manual therapy) and two diagnosis procedures (Pulse diagnosis and Constitutional diagnosis). Methods: Assessment modules were developed based on the suggestions of relevant academic societies and implemented as examinations for third-year Korean medicine students in their second semester. The modules were evaluated by medical education experts using the RUMBA checklist, which includes the features of being realistic, understandable, measurable, behavioral, and achievable. In addition, open-ended feedback was collected from expert evaluators, student test takers, and standardized patients regarding each module. Results: The evaluation results were reported both quantitatively and qualitatively. Using the RUMBA checklist, all four modules received mean scores ≥ 4 for understandable, behavioral, and achievable domains, with acupuncture scoring ≥ 4 across all RUMBA domains. The measurable domain recorded the lowest scores for Chuna manual therapy, pulse diagnosis, and constitutional diagnosis. Regarding the necessity of assessment modules, Chuna manual therapy ranked the highest (mean=5.0). Also, constitutional diagnosis ranked the highest (mean=4.67) for feasibility in Clinical Skills Assessment (CSA) for the Korean Medicine Doctor (KMD) national licensing examination. Feedback from expert evaluators was categorized into ‘content and scoring criteria’, ‘physical environment or simulators’, and ‘education or training’. The evaluators mainly suggested the need for a wider range of needle manipulations, pulse patterns, and constitutional questions. They also recommended providing test conditions that ensure clear observation of test takers’ hand movements. In addition, student test takers and standardized patient provided suggestions primarily concerning the authenticity and safety of the assessment modules. They also raised concerns about whether the professor could accurately evaluate students’ performance, as test conditions did not always allow clear observation and some assessment items were overly simple or of low difficulty. The introduction of auxiliary equipment and the development of assessment methods that can differentiate between students were suggested. Conclusion: This study developed assessment modules that can be utilized in the CSA for Korean medicine education. Students contributed the learner’s perspective, medical education experts provided professional analysis, and standardized patients represented the patient’s perspective. These modules are expected to provide a foundation for the KMD national licensing examination, ensuring practitioner competency, patient safety, and treatment effectiveness.