Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity: one word with a plurality of meanings

  • Published:
Advances in Health Sciences Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Validity is one of the most debated constructs in our field; debates abound about what is legitimate and what is not, and the word continues to be used in ways that are explicitly disavowed by current practice guidelines. The resultant tensions have not been well characterized, yet their existence suggests that different uses may maintain some value for the user that needs to be better understood. We conducted an empirical form of Discourse Analysis to document the multiple ways in which validity is described, understood, and used in the health professions education field. We created and analyzed an archive of texts identified from multiple sources, including formal databases such as PubMED, ERIC and PsycINFO as well as the authors’ personal assessment libraries. An iterative analytic process was used to identify, discuss, and characterize emerging discourses about validity. Three discourses of validity were identified. Validity as a test characteristic is underpinned by the notion that validity is an intrinsic property of a tool and could, therefore, be seen as content and context independent. Validity as an argument-based evidentiary-chain emphasizes the importance of supporting the interpretation of assessment results with ongoing analysis such that validity does not belong to the tool/instrument itself. The emphasis is on process-based validation (emphasizing the journey instead of the goal). Validity as a social imperative foregrounds the consequences of assessment at the individual and societal levels, be they positive or negative. The existence of different discourses may explain—in part—results observed in recent systematic reviews that highlighted discrepancies and tensions between recommendations for practice and the validation practices that are actually adopted and reported. Some of these practices, despite contravening accepted validation ‘guidelines’, may nevertheless respond to different and somewhat unarticulated needs within health professional education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AERA, Apa, & NCME (American Educational Research Association & National Council on Measurement in Education) Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, A. P. A. (1999). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (Vol. 6th). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreatta, P. B., & Gruppen, L. D. (2009). Conceptualising and classifying validity evidence for simulation. Medical Education, 43(11), 1028–1035. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03454.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, T. J., Ghosh, A. K., Cook, D. A., Erwin, P. J., & Mandrekar, J. N. (2004). How reliable are assessments of clinical teaching? A review of the published instruments. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(9), 971–977. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40066.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckman, T. J., Mandrekar, J. N., Engstler, G. J., & Ficalora, R. D. (2009). Determining reliability of clinical assessment scores in real time. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 21(3), 188–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berendonk, C., Stalmeijer, R. E., & Schuwirth, L. W. T. (2013). Expertise in performance assessment: Assessors’ perspectives. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(4), 559–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, R., & Blais, J.-G. (2004). Modèles de Mesure: L’Apport de la Théorie des Réponses aux Items (Vol. 2004). Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=3hPlCHaA7DoC&pgis=1.

  • Charlin, B., Roy, L., Brailovsky, C., Goulet, F., & van der Vleuten, C. (2000). The script concordance test: A tool to assess the reflective clinician. Teachning and Learning in Medicine, 12(4), 189–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cizek, G. J., Bowen, D., & Church, K. (2010). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests: A follow-up study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(5), 732–743. doi:10.1177/0013164410379323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cizek, G. J., Rosenberg, S. L., & Koons, H. H. (2008). Sources of validity evidence for educational and psychological tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 397–412. doi:10.1177/0013164407310130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, D. A., & Beckman, T. J. (2006). Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: Theory and application. The American Journal of Medicine, 119(2), 166.e7–166.e16. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Ginsburg, S., & Hatala, R. (2015). A contemporary approach to validity arguments: A practical guide to Kane’s framework. Medical Education, 49(6), 560–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, D. A., Brydges, R., Zendejas, B., Hamstra, S. J., & Hatala, R. (2013). Technology-enhanced simulation to assess health professionals: A systematic review of validity evidence, research methods, and reporting quality. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 88(6), 872–883. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828ffdcf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, D. A., Zendejas, B., Hamstra, S. J., Hatala, R., & Brydges, R. (2014). What counts as validity evidence? Examples and prevalence in a systematic review of simulation-based assessment. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 19(2), 233–250. doi:10.1007/s10459-013-9458-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed., pp. 443–507). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, J., Humphris, G., & Jolly, B. (2002). Assessing health professionals. Medical Education, 36, 800–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cureton, E. E. (1951). Validity. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement (1st ed., pp. 621–694). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

  • Downing, S. M. (2003). Validity: On the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Medical Education, 37, 830–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., & Macala, C. (2014). Multiple mini-interview test characteristics:’Tis better to ask candidates to recall than to imagine. Medical Education, 48(6), 604–613. doi:10.1111/medu.12402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York: WW Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graeff, E. C., Leafman, J. S., Wallace, L., & Stewart, G. (2014). Job satisfaction levels of physician assistant faculty in the United States. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 25(2), 15–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6(4), 427–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, B. D. (2003). Validity and the OSCE. Medical Teacher, 25(3), 250–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, B. D., Kuper, A., & Reeves, S. (2008). Discourse analysis. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 337, a879. doi:10.1136/bmj.a879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddle, T. S., & Heudebert, G. R. (2007). Taking apart the art: The risk of anatomizing clinical competence. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 82(6), 536–541. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3180555935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. (2006). Content-related validity evidence in test development. In S. M. Downing & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 131–153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuper, A., Reeves, S., Albert, M., & Hodges, B. D. (2007). Assessment: Do we need to broaden our methodological horizons? Medical Education, 41, 1121–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lineberry, M., Kreiter, C. D., & Bordage, G. (2013). Threats to validity in the use and interpretation of script concordance test scores. Medical Education, 47(12), 1175–1183. doi:10.1111/medu.12283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingard, L. (2009). What we see and don’t see when we look at “competence”: Notes on a god term. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14, 625–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoubrie, P. (2004). Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: A literature review. Medical Teacher, 26(8), 709–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 14(4), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2012). The COSMIN checklist manual. Amsterdam: VU University Medical. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. (2004). Editorial—The morality of medical school admissions. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9(2), 79–82. doi:10.1023/B:AHSE.0000027553.28703.cf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. (2015). Identifying the bad apples. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(2), 299–303. doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9598-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portney, L. G. (2000). Validity of measurements. In U. S. River (Ed.), Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice (Vol. 2, Chap. 6). NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, C., Newble, D., Jolly, B., Reed, M., & Hampton, K. (2006). Assuring the quality of high-stakes undergraduate assessments of clinical competence. Medical Teacher, 28(6), 535–543. doi:10.1080/01421590600711187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulman, J. A., & Wolfe, E. W. (2000). Development of a nutrition self-efficacy scale for prospective physicians. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1(2), 107–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuwirth, L. W. T., & van der Vleuten, C. (2012). Programmatic assessment and Kane’s validity perspective. Medical Education, 46(1), 38–48. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04098.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (1997). The centrality of test use and consequences for test validity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 5–8. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00585.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. B., & Roberts, T. E. (2016). Trends in national licensing examinations in medicine. Medical Education, 50(1), 101–114. doi:10.1111/medu.12810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Der Vleuten, C. P. M., Schuwirth, L. W. T., Scheele, F., Driessen, E. W., & Hodges, B. (2010). The assessment of professional competence: Building blocks for theory development. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 24(6), 703–719. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2010.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Winkle, L. J., La Salle, S., Richardson, L., Bjork, B. C., Burdick, P., Chandar, N., et al. (2013). Challenging medical students to confront their biases: A case study simulation approach, 23(2), 217–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wools, S., & Eggens, T. (2013). Systematic review on validation studies in medical education assessment. In AERA annual meeting 2013. San Francisco.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Catherine Côté for her help with data management in NVivo, Tim Dubé, Ph.D. and anonymous reviewers for feedback on a previous version of this manuscript. Funding for this project was provided by the Société des médecins de l’Université de Sherbrooke Research Chair in Medical Education, held by Christina St-Onge.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada

    Christina St-Onge

  2. McGill University, Montreal, Canada

    Meredith Young

  3. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Kevin W. Eva

  4. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Brian Hodges

Authors
  1. Christina St-Onge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meredith Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin W. Eva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brian Hodges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina St-Onge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

St-Onge, C., Young, M., Eva, K.W. et al. Validity: one word with a plurality of meanings. Adv in Health Sci Educ 22, 853–867 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9716-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-016-9716-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation