Literature DB >> 26839945

Consequences Validity Evidence: Evaluating the Impact of Educational Assessments.

David A Cook1, Matthew Lineberry.   

Abstract

Because tests that do not alter management (i.e., influence decisions and actions) should not be performed, data on the consequences of assessment constitute a critical source of validity evidence. Consequences validity evidence is challenging for many educators to understand, perhaps because it has no counterpart in the older framework of content, criterion, and construct validity. The authors' purpose is to explain consequences validity evidence and propose a framework for organizing its collection and interpretation.Both clinical and educational assessments can be viewed as interventions. The act of administering or taking a test, the interpretation of scores, and the ensuing decisions and actions influence those being assessed (e.g., patients or students) and other people and systems (e.g., physicians, teachers, hospitals, schools). Consequences validity evidence examines such impacts of assessments. Despite its importance, consequences evidence is reported infrequently in health professions education (range 5%-20% of studies in recent systematic reviews) and is typically limited in scope and rigor.Consequences validity evidence can derive from evaluations of the impact on examinees, educators, schools, or the end target of practice (e.g., patients or health care systems); and the downstream impact of classifications (e.g., different score cut points and labels). Impact can result from the uses of scores or from the assessment activity itself, and can be intended or unintended and beneficial or harmful. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods are useful. The type, quantity, and rigor of consequences evidence required will vary depending on the assessment and the claims for its use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26839945     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  23 in total

1.  Psychometric properties of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) skills examination.

Authors:  Matthew Lineberry; E Matthew Ritter
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Comparison of Content on the American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification Examination With Conditions Seen in Practice by General Internists.

Authors:  Bradley Gray; Jonathan Vandergrift; Rebecca S Lipner; Marianne M Green
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Targeting Assessment for Learning within Pharmacy Education.

Authors:  Michael J Peeters
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.047

4.  Ensuring competence in ultrasound-guided procedures-a validity study of a newly developed assessment tool.

Authors:  Niklas Kahr Rasmussen; Jonathan Frederik Carlsen; Beth Hærstedt Olsen; Dorte Stærk; Trine-Lise Lambine; Birthe Henriksen; Maja Rasmussen; Mattis Jørgensen; Elisabeth Albrecht-Beste; Lars Konge; Michael Bachmann Nielsen; Leizl Joy Nayahangan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Training and assessment using the LapSim laparoscopic simulator: a scoping review of validity evidence.

Authors:  Conor Toale; Marie Morris; Dara O Kavanagh
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 3.453

6.  Assessment of esophagogastroduodenoscopy skills on simulators before real-life performance.

Authors:  Anders Bo Nielsen; Finn Møller Pedersen; Christian B Laursen; Lars Konge; Stig Laursen
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2022-06-10

7.  Development of a Self-Rated Mixed Methods Skills Assessment: The National Institutes of Health Mixed Methods Research Training Program for the Health Sciences.

Authors:  Timothy C Guetterman; John W Creswell; Marsha Wittink; Fran K Barg; Felipe G Castro; Britt Dahlberg; Daphne C Watkins; Charles Deutsch; Joseph J Gallo
Journal:  J Contin Educ Health Prof       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 1.355

8.  The High-Value Care Rounding Tool: Development and Validity Evidence.

Authors:  Corrie E McDaniel; Andrew A White; Miranda C Bradford; Carolyn D Sy; Tiffany Chen; Doug Brock; Jeffrey Foti; Jimmy B Beck
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 9.  Feedback and Assessment Tools for Handoffs: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Joshua Davis; Catherine Roach; Cater Elliott; Matthew Mardis; Ellen M Justice; Lee Ann Riesenberg
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2017-02

10.  Moving beyond Cronbach's Alpha and Inter-Rater Reliability: A Primer on Generalizability Theory for Pharmacy Education.

Authors:  Michael J Peeters
Journal:  Innov Pharm       Date:  2021-02-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.