A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework

被引:355
作者
Cook, David A. [1 ,2 ]
Brydges, Ryan [3 ,4 ]
Ginsburg, Shiphra [3 ,4 ]
Hatala, Rose [5 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Coll Med, Mayo Clin Online Learning, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Div Gen Internal Med, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[3] Univ Toronto, Dept Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Hlth Network, Wilson Ctr, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Univ British Columbia, Dept Med, Vancouver, BC, Canada
关键词
PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; OBJECTIVE STRUCTURED ASSESSMENT; TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED SIMULATION; IN-TRAINING EVALUATION; GLOBAL RATING-SCALES; HEALTH-PROFESSIONALS; CANCER MORTALITY; TECHNICAL SKILL; RELIABILITY; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.1111/medu.12678
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
ContextAssessment is central to medical education and the validation of assessments is vital to their use. Earlier validity frameworks suffer from a multiplicity of types of validity or failure to prioritise among sources of validity evidence. Kane's framework addresses both concerns by emphasising key inferences as the assessment progresses from a single observation to a final decision. Evidence evaluating these inferences is planned and presented as a validity argument. ObjectivesWe aim to offer a practical introduction to the key concepts of Kane's framework that educators will find accessible and applicable to a wide range of assessment tools and activities. ResultsAll assessments are ultimately intended to facilitate a defensible decision about the person being assessed. Validation is the process of collecting and interpreting evidence to support that decision. Rigorous validation involves articulating the claims and assumptions associated with the proposed decision (the interpretation/use argument), empirically testing these assumptions, and organising evidence into a coherent validity argument. Kane identifies four inferences in the validity argument: Scoring (translating an observation into one or more scores); Generalisation (using the score[s] as a reflection of performance in a test setting); Extrapolation (using the score[s] as a reflection of real-world performance), and Implications (applying the score[s] to inform a decision or action). Evidence should be collected to support each of these inferences and should focus on the most questionable assumptions in the chain of inference. Key assumptions (and needed evidence) vary depending on the assessment's intended use or associated decision. Kane's framework applies to quantitative and qualitative assessments, and to individual tests and programmes of assessment. ConclusionsValidation focuses on evaluating the key claims, assumptions and inferences that link assessment scores with their intended interpretations and uses. The Implications and associated decisions are the most important inferences in the validity argument. Discuss ideas arising from the article at discuss'.
引用
收藏
页码:560 / 575
页数:16
相关论文
共 80 条
[1]   Mortality Results from a Randomized Prostate-Cancer Screening Trial [J].
Andriole, Gerald L. ;
Grubb, Robert L., III ;
Buys, Saundra S. ;
Chia, David ;
Church, Timothy R. ;
Fouad, Mona N. ;
Gelmann, Edward P. ;
Kvale, Paul A. ;
Reding, Douglas J. ;
Weissfeld, Joel L. ;
Yokochi, Lance A. ;
Crawford, E. David ;
O'Brien, Barbara ;
Clapp, Jonathan D. ;
Rathmell, Joshua M. ;
Riley, Thomas L. ;
Hayes, Richard B. ;
Kramer, Barnett S. ;
Izmirlian, Grant ;
Miller, Anthony B. ;
Pinsky, Paul F. ;
Prorok, Philip C. ;
Gohagan, John K. ;
Berg, Christine D. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 360 (13) :1310-1319
[2]  
[Anonymous], BMJ
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2014, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education
[4]   The reliability of multiple objective measures of surgery and the role of human performance [J].
Bann, S ;
Davis, LM ;
Moorthy, K ;
Munz, Y ;
Hernandez, J ;
Khan, M ;
Datta, V ;
Darzi, A .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2005, 189 (06) :747-752
[5]   Screening for Prostate Cancer - The Controversy That Refuses to Die [J].
Barry, Michael J. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2009, 360 (13) :1351-1354
[6]   Commentary on "Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores" [J].
Brennan, Robert L. .
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, 2013, 50 (01) :74-83
[7]   CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDATION BY THE MULTITRAIT-MULTIMETHOD MATRIX [J].
CAMPBELL, DT ;
FISKE, DW .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1959, 56 (02) :81-105
[8]   Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline [J].
Carter, H. Ballentine ;
Albertsen, Peter C. ;
Barry, Michael J. ;
Etzioni, Ruth ;
Freedland, Stephen J. ;
Greene, Kirsten Lynn ;
Holmberg, Lars ;
Kantoff, Philip ;
Konety, Badrinath R. ;
Murad, Mohammad Hassan ;
Penson, David F. ;
Zietman, Anthony L. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2013, 190 (02) :419-426
[9]   LONGITUDINAL EVALUATION OF PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN LEVELS IN MEN WITH AND WITHOUT PROSTATE DISEASE [J].
CARTER, HB ;
PEARSON, JD ;
METTER, J ;
BRANT, LJ ;
CHAN, DW ;
ANDRES, R ;
FOZARD, JL ;
WALSH, PC .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1992, 267 (16) :2215-2220
[10]   The Internal Medicine Reporting Milestones and the Next Accreditation System [J].
Caverzagie, Kelly J. ;
Iobst, William F. ;
Aagaard, Eva M. ;
Hood, Sarah ;
Chick, Davoren A. ;
Kane, Gregory C. ;
Brigham, Timothy P. ;
Swing, Susan R. ;
Meade, Lauren B. ;
Bazari, Hasan ;
Bush, Roger W. ;
Kirk, Lynne M. ;
Green, Michael L. ;
Hinchey, Kevin T. ;
Smith, Cynthia D. .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2013, 158 (07) :557-+