The Balancing Act of Assessment Validity in Interprofessional Healthcare Education: A Qualitative Evaluation Study.

Abstract

Construct & background: In order to determine students' level of interprofessional competencies, there is a need for well-considered and thoroughly designed interprofessional assessments. Current literature about interprofessional assessments focuses largely on the development and validation of assessment instruments such as self-assessments or questionnaires to assess students' knowledge or attitudes. Less is known about the design and validity of integral types of assessment in interprofessional education, such as case-based assessments, or performance assessments. The aim of this study is to evaluate the evidence for and threats to the validity of the decisions about students' interprofessional performances based on such integral assessment task. We investigated whether the assessment prototype is a precursor to practice (authenticity) and whether the assessment provides valid information to determine the level of interprofessional competence (scoring).

Approach: We used a design-based qualitative research design in which we conducted three group interviews with teachers, students, and interprofessional assessment experts. In semi-structured group interviews, participants evaluated the evidence for and threats to the validity of an interprofessional assessment task, which were analyzed using deductive and inductive content analysis.

Findings: Although both evidence for and threats to validity were mentioned, the threats refuting the assessment's validity prevailed. Evidence for the authenticity aspect was that the assessment task, conducting a team meeting, is common in practice. However, its validity was questioned because the assessment task appeared more structured as compared to practice. The most frequently mentioned threat to the scoring aspect was that the process of interprofessional collaboration between the students could not be evaluated sufficiently by means of this assessment task.

Conclusions: This study showed that establishing interprofessional assessment validity requires three major balancing acts. The first is the balance between authenticity and complexity. As interprofessional practice and competencies are complex, interprofessional tasks require build-up or guidance toward this complexity and chaotic practice. The second is that between authenticity and scoring, in which optimal authenticity might lead to threats to scoring and vice versa. Simultaneous optimal authenticity and scoring seems impossible, requiring ongoing evaluation and monitoring of interprofessional assessment validity to ensure authentic yet fair assessments for all participating professions. The third balancing act is between team scoring and individual scoring. As interprofessional practice requires collaboration and synthesis of diverse professions, the team process is at the heart of solving interprofessional tasks. However, to stimulate individual accountability, the individual performance should not be neglected.