CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,434Innovations in Medical EducationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data

Downing, Steven M·2003·Medical Education
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context All assessments in medical education require evidence of validity to be interpreted meaningfully. In contemporary usage, all validity is construct validity, which requires multiple sources of evidence; construct validity is the whole of validity, but has multiple facets. Five sources – content, response process, internal structure, relationship to other variables and consequences – are noted by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing as fruitful areas to seek validity evidence. Purpose The purpose of this article is to discuss construct validity in the context of medical education and to summarize, through example, some typical sources of validity evidence for a written and a performance examination. Summary Assessments are not valid or invalid; rather, the scores or outcomes of assessments have more or less evidence to support (or refute) a specific interpretation (such as passing or failing a course). Validity is approached as hypothesis and uses theory, logic and the scientific method to collect and assemble data to support or fail to support the proposed score interpretations, at a given point in time. Data and logic are assembled into arguments – pro and con – for some specific interpretation of assessment data. Examples of types of validity evidence, data and information from each source are discussed in the context of a high‐stakes written and performance examination in medical education. Conclusion All assessments require evidence of the reasonableness of the proposed interpretation, as test data in education have little or no intrinsic meaning. The constructs purported to be measured by our assessments are important to students, faculty, administrators, patients and society and require solid scientific evidence of their meaning.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Cronbach LJ, 1971, Educational Measurement, 443
  2. Cronbach LJ, 1988, Test Validity, 3
  3. Cronbach LJ, 1989, Intelligence: Measurement, Theory, and Public Policy, 147
  4. 10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.527 · DOI
  5. Cureton EE, 1951, Educational Measurement, 621
  6. Linn RL, 2002, Large‐Scale Assessment Programs for All Students: Development, Implementation, and Analysis.
  7. Angoff WH, 1971, Educational Measurement, 508

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Downing, S. M.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Downing, Steven M
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-08-27
Volume
37
Issue
9
Pages
830-837
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01594.x
OpenAlex
W2161254436
Cited by
1,434
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 71 · 2022: 92 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 110 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 89 · 2016: 99 · 2015: 96 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 48
FWCI
12.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
construct validity, validity evidence, medical education assessment, written examinations, high-stakes testing, score interpretation, content validity, response processes, internal structure, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Education, Medical, Educational Measurement, Humans, Reproducibility of Results

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