The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework
Abstract
Context: Assessment 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. Objectives: We 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. Results: All 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. Conclusions: Validation 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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Construct validity in psychological tests.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0040957 · Cited by 11,195
The standards for educational and psychological testing.
Eignor, D. R. (2013) · APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Vol. 1: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology. · doi:10.1037/14047-013 · Cited by 6,988
Screening and Prostate-Cancer Mortality in a Randomized European Study
Schröder, F. H., Hugosson, J., Roobol, M. J., Tammela, T. L. J., Ciatto, S., Nelen, V., Kwiatkowski, M., Lujan, M., Lilja, H., Zappa, M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0810084 · Cited by 4,014
Mortality Results from a Randomized Prostate-Cancer Screening Trial
Andriole, G. L., Crawford, E. D., Grubb, R. L., Buys, S. S., Chia, D., Church, T. R., Fouad, M. N., Gelmann, E. P., Kvale, P. A., Reding, D. J., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0810696 · Cited by 2,924
Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents
Martin, J. A., Regehr, G., Reznick, R., Macrae, H., Murnaghan, J., Hutchison, C., & Brown, M. (1997) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.1800840237 · Cited by 2,527
Screening for Prostate Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Moyer, V. A., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459 · Cited by 2,522
Prostate-Specific Antigen as a Serum Marker for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate
Stamey, T. A., Yang, N., Hay, A. R., McNeal, J. E., Freiha, F. S., & Redwine, E. A. (1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198710083171501 · Cited by 2,448
Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores
Kane, M. T. (2013) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/jedm.12000 · Cited by 2,110
The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x · Cited by 2,037
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 10.3917/rhu.016.0017 · DOI
- Cronbach LJ, 1988, Test Validity, 3
- 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1997.02502.x · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Validation of educational assessments: a primer for simulation and beyond
Cook, D. A., & Hatala, R. (2016) · Advances in Simulation · doi:10.1186/s41077-016-0033-y · Cited by 304
Self-citationConsequences Validity Evidence: Evaluating the Impact of Educational Assessments
Cook, D. A., & Lineberry, M. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001114 · Cited by 129
Self-citationModeling Surgical Technical Skill Using Expert Assessment for Automated Computer Rating
Azari, D. P., Frasier, L. L., Quamme, S. R. P., Greenberg, C. C., Pugh, C. M., Greenberg, J. A., & Radwin, R. G. (2019) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002478 · Cited by 84
Demystifying AI: Current State and Future Role in Medical Education Assessment
Turner, L., Hashimoto, D. A., Vasisht, S., & Schaye, V. (2024) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005598 · Cited by 70
The DoCTRINE Guidelines: Defined Criteria To Report INnovations in Education
Blanco, M., Prunuske, J., DiCorcia, M., Learman, L. A., Mutcheson, B., & Huang, G. C. (2022) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004634 · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Ginsburg, S., & Hatala, R.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-05-19
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 560-575
- ISSN
- 0308-0110
- 1365-2923
- Cited by
- 554
- References
- 84
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/medu.12678
- The paper
- Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Ginsburg, S., & Hatala, R. (2015). A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane's framework. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12678
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.