Literature DB >> 22150195

Programmatic assessment and Kane's validity perspective.

Lambert W T Schuwirth1, Cees P M van der Vleuten.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Programmatic assessment is a notion that implies that the strength of the assessment process results from a careful combination of various assessment instruments. Accordingly, no single instrument is superior to another, but each has its own strengths, weaknesses and purpose in a programme. Yet, in terms of psychometric methods, a one-size-fits-all approach is often used. Kane's views on validity as represented by a series of arguments provide a useful framework from which to highlight the value of different widely used approaches to improve the quality and validity of assessment procedures.
METHODS: In this paper we discuss four inferences which form part of Kane's validity theory: from observations to scores; from scores to universe scores; from universe scores to target domain, and from target domain to construct. For each of these inferences, we provide examples and descriptions of approaches and arguments that may help to support the validity inference.
CONCLUSIONS: As well as standard psychometric methods, a programme of assessment makes use of various other arguments, such as: item review and quality control, structuring and examiner training; probabilistic methods, saturation approaches and judgement processes, and epidemiological methods, collation, triangulation and member-checking procedures. In an assessment programme each of these can be used. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2012.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22150195     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04098.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Educ        ISSN: 0308-0110            Impact factor:   6.251


  28 in total

1.  Learning Analytics in Medical Education Assessment: The Past, the Present, and the Future.

Authors:  Teresa Chan; Stefanie Sebok-Syer; Brent Thoma; Alyssa Wise; Jonathan Sherbino; Martin Pusic
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2018-03-22

2.  Programmatic Assessment in Emergency Medicine: Implementation of Best Practices.

Authors:  Marcia Perry; Andrew Linn; Brendan W Munzer; Laura Hopson; Ambrosya Amlong; Michael Cole; Sally A Santen
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2018-02

3.  The rationale for and use of assessment frameworks: improving assessment and reporting quality in medical education.

Authors:  Jacob Pearce; Daniel Edwards; Julian Fraillon; Hamish Coates; Benedict J Canny; David Wilkinson
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2015-06

Review 4.  Should essays and other "open-ended"-type questions retain a place in written summative assessment in clinical medicine?

Authors:  Richard J Hift
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 2.463

5.  Australian medical students have fewer opportunities to do physical examination of peers of the opposite gender.

Authors:  Silas Taylor; Boaz Shulruf
Journal:  J Educ Eval Health Prof       Date:  2016-11-23

6.  Addressing the theory-practice gap in assessment.

Authors:  Sarah R Wright; Matt Homer
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2017-02

7.  McMaster Modular Assessment Program (McMAP) Through the Years: Residents' Experience With an Evolving Feedback Culture Over a 3-year Period.

Authors:  Shelly-Anne Li; Jonathan Sherbino; Teresa M Chan
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2017-01-19

8.  Multiple tutorial-based assessments: a generalizability study.

Authors:  Christina St-Onge; Eric Frenette; Daniel J Côté; André De Champlain
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 2.463

9.  A validation study of the psychometric properties of the Groningen Reflection Ability Scale.

Authors:  Nina Bjerre Andersen; Lotte O'Neill; Lise Kirstine Gormsen; Line Hvidberg; Anne Mette Morcke
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 2.463

10.  The reliability and validity of a portfolio designed as a programmatic assessment of performance in an integrated clinical placement.

Authors:  Chris Roberts; Narelle Shadbolt; Tyler Clark; Phillip Simpson
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.