Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 554

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

Cook, David A, Brydges, Ryan, Ginsburg, Shiphra, Hatala, Rose·2015·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/medu.12678
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.12678

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.3917/rhu.016.0017 · DOI
  2. Cronbach LJ, 1988, Test Validity, 3
  3. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1997.02502.x · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 554

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
DOI
10.1111/medu.12678
Cited by
554
References
84
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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

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.