Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of educational assessments: a primer for simulation and beyond

Cook, David A., Hatala, Rose·2016·Advances in Simulation
DOI 10.1186/s41077-016-0033-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Simulation plays a vital role in health professions assessment. This review provides a primer on assessment validation for educators and education researchers. We focus on simulation-based assessment of health professionals, but the principles apply broadly to other assessment approaches and topics. KEY PRINCIPLES: Validation refers to the process of collecting validity evidence to evaluate the appropriateness of the interpretations, uses, and decisions based on assessment results. Contemporary frameworks view validity as a hypothesis, and validity evidence is collected to support or refute the validity hypothesis (i.e., that the proposed interpretations and decisions are defensible). In validation, the educator or researcher defines the proposed interpretations and decisions, identifies and prioritizes the most questionable assumptions in making these interpretations and decisions (the "interpretation-use argument"), empirically tests those assumptions using existing or newly-collected evidence, and then summarizes the evidence as a coherent "validity argument." A framework proposed by Messick identifies potential evidence sources: content, response process, internal structure, relationships with other variables, and consequences. Another framework proposed by Kane identifies key inferences in generating useful interpretations: scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and implications/decision. We propose an eight-step approach to validation that applies to either framework: Define the construct and proposed interpretation, make explicit the intended decision(s), define the interpretation-use argument and prioritize needed validity evidence, identify candidate instruments and/or create/adapt a new instrument, appraise existing evidence and collect new evidence as needed, keep track of practical issues, formulate the validity argument, and make a judgment: does the evidence support the intended use? CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous validation first prioritizes and then empirically evaluates key assumptions in the interpretation and use of assessment scores. Validation science would be improved by more explicit articulation and prioritization of the interpretation-use argument, greater use of formal validation frameworks, and more evidence informing the consequences and implications of assessment.

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 · 10.1186/s41077-016-0033-y

Cites

62 of 62 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. Association AER. American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.
  2. Association AER. American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.
  3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. Validity. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014. p. 11–31.

Metadata

Authors
Cook, D. A., & Hatala, R.
Venue
Advances in Simulation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-01
Volume
1
Issue
1
ISSN
2059-0628
DOI
10.1186/s41077-016-0033-y
Cited by
304
References
62
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

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.