| Title |
Four tenets of modern validity theory for medical education assessment and evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Medical Education and Practice, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/amep.s139492 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kenneth D Royal |
| Abstract |
Validity is considered by many to be the most important criterion for evaluating a set of scores, yet few agree on what exactly the term means. Since the mid-1800s, scholars have been concerned with the notion of validity, but over time, the term has developed a variety of meanings across academic disciplines and contexts. Accordingly, when scholars with different academic backgrounds, many of whom hold deeply entrenched perspectives about validity conceptualizations, converge in the field of medical education assessment, it is a recipe for confusion. Thus, it is important to work toward a consensus about validity in the context of medical education assessment. Thus, the purpose of this work was to present four fundamental tenets of modern validity theory in an effort to establish a framework for scholars in the field of medical education assessment to follow when conceptualizing validity, interpreting validity evidence, and reporting research findings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 127 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 32 | 25% |
| Unknown | 40 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Unknown | 45 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2021.
All research outputs
#15,160,341
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,701
of 328,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Medical Education and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them