Dai, David Wei;
Vu, Thao;
Knoch, Ute;
Lim, Angelina S;
Malone, Daniel Thomas;
Mak, Vivienne;
(2024)
Expanding Kane's argument-based validity framework: What can validation practices in language assessment offer health professions education?
Medical Education
10.1111/medu.15452.
(In press).
Preview |
PDF
Dai et al 2024_medical education.pdf - Published Version Download (505kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Context One central consideration in health professions education (HPE) is to ensure we are making sound and justifiable decisions based on the assessment instruments we use on health professionals. To achieve this goal, HPE assessment researchers have drawn on Kane's argument-based framework to ascertain the validity of their assessment tools. However, the original four-inference model proposed by Kane – frequently used in HPE validation research – has its limitations in terms of what each inference entails and what claims and sources of backing are housed in each inference. The under-specification in the four-inference model has led to inconsistent practices in HPE validation research, posing challenges for (i) researchers who want to evaluate the validity of different HPE assessment tools and/or (ii) researchers who are new to test validation and need to establish a coherent understanding of argument-based validation. Methods To address these identified concerns, this article introduces the expanded seven-inference argument-based validation framework that is established practice in the field of language testing and assessment (LTA). We explicate (i) why LTA researchers experienced the need to further specify the original four Kanean inferences; (ii) how LTA validation research defines each of their seven inferences and (iii) what claims, assumptions and sources of backing are associated with each inference. Sampling six representative validation studies in HPE, we demonstrate why an expanded model and a shared disciplinary validation framework can facilitate the examination of the validity evidence in diverse HPE validation contexts. Conclusions We invite HPE validation researchers to experiment with the seven-inference argument-based framework from LTA to evaluate its usefulness to HPE. We also call for greater interdisciplinary dialogue between HPE and LTA since both disciplines share many fundamental concerns about language use, communication skills, assessment practices and validity in assessment instruments.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Expanding Kane's argument-based validity framework: What can validation practices in language assessment offer health professions education? |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1111/medu.15452 |
| Publisher version: | https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15452 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third-party material in this article are included in the Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
| Keywords: | Validation, language assessment, Kane, professional communication, argument-based validation, health professions education |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education > UCL Institute of Education UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Education > UCL Institute of Education > IOE - Culture, Communication and Media |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10193480 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
