Cited by 81Innovations in Medical EducationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

Much ado about differences: why expert-novice comparisons add little to the validity argument

Cook, David A.·2015·Advances in Health Sciences Education

Abstract

One approach to validating assessment scores involves evaluating the ability of scores to discriminate among groups who differ in a specific characteristic, such as training status (in education) or disease state (in clinical applications). Such known-groups comparison studies provide validity evidence of "relationships with other variables." The typical education research study might compare scores between staff physicians and postgraduate trainees with the hypothesis that those with more advanced training (the "experts") will have higher scores than those less advanced (the "novices"). However, such comparisons are too nonspecific to support clear conclusions, and expert-novice comparisons (and known-groups comparisons in general) thus contribute little to the validity argument. The major flaw is the problem of confounding: there are multiple plausible explanations for any observed between-group differences. The absence of hypothesized differences would suggest a serious flaw in the validity argument, but the confirmation of such differences adds little. As such, accurate known-groups discrimination may be necessary, but will never be sufficient, to support the validity of scores. This article elaborates on this and other problems with the known-groups comparison that limit its utility as a source of validity evidence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10459-014-9551-3

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cook, D. A.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Cook, David A.
Venue
Advances in Health Sciences Education
Published
2014-09-27
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
829-834
ISSN
  • 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1677
OpenAlex
W2002440178
Cited by
81
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5
FWCI
7.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
known-groups comparison, expert-novice comparison, validity evidence, confounding, postgraduate trainees, group differences
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Competency-Based Education, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Education, Medical, Expert Testimony, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Validation Studies as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review