The interpretation-use argument- the essential ingredient for high quality assessment design and validation.

IF 3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Advances in Health Sciences Education Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI:10.1007/s10459-024-10392-6
Jacqueline Raymond, David Wei Dai, Sue McAllister
{"title":"The interpretation-use argument- the essential ingredient for high quality assessment design and validation.","authors":"Jacqueline Raymond, David Wei Dai, Sue McAllister","doi":"10.1007/s10459-024-10392-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is increasing interest in health professions education (HPE) in applying argument-based validity approaches, such as Kane's, to assessment design. The critical first step in employing Kane's approach is to specify the interpretation-use argument (IUA). However, in the HPE literature, this step is often poorly articulated. This article provides guidance on developing the IUA using a worked example involving a workplace performance assessment tool. In developing the IUA, we have drawn inspiration from approaches used in the discipline of language assessment to situate the inferences, warrants and assumptions in the context of the assessment tool. The worked example makes use of Toulmin's model of informal logic/argumentation as a framework to structure the IUA and presents Toulmin diagrams for each inference such that the reader can connect the argument chain together. We also present several lessons learned so the reader can understand the issues we grappled with in developing the IUA. A well laid out IUA allows the argument to be critiqued by others and provides a framework to guide collection of validity evidence, and therefore is an essential ingredient in the work of assessment design and validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-024-10392-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is increasing interest in health professions education (HPE) in applying argument-based validity approaches, such as Kane's, to assessment design. The critical first step in employing Kane's approach is to specify the interpretation-use argument (IUA). However, in the HPE literature, this step is often poorly articulated. This article provides guidance on developing the IUA using a worked example involving a workplace performance assessment tool. In developing the IUA, we have drawn inspiration from approaches used in the discipline of language assessment to situate the inferences, warrants and assumptions in the context of the assessment tool. The worked example makes use of Toulmin's model of informal logic/argumentation as a framework to structure the IUA and presents Toulmin diagrams for each inference such that the reader can connect the argument chain together. We also present several lessons learned so the reader can understand the issues we grappled with in developing the IUA. A well laid out IUA allows the argument to be critiqued by others and provides a framework to guide collection of validity evidence, and therefore is an essential ingredient in the work of assessment design and validation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解释-使用论证--高质量评估设计和验证的基本要素。
在健康职业教育(HPE)中,人们越来越关注在评估设计中应用基于论证的有效性方法,如凯恩的方法。采用凯恩方法的关键第一步是明确解释-使用论证(IUA)。然而,在 HPE 文献中,这一步往往表述不清。本文通过一个涉及工作场所绩效评估工具的实例,为制定 IUA 提供指导。在制定综合评估时,我们从语言评估学科中使用的方法中汲取灵感,将推论、授权和假设置于评估工具的背景中。工作示例以图尔敏的非正式逻辑/论证模型为框架来构建 IUA,并为每个推论提供图尔敏图表,以便读者将论证链连接起来。我们还介绍了一些经验教训,以便读者了解我们在开发 IUA 时所遇到的问题。一个布局合理的 IUA 可以让他人对论证进行批判,并提供一个指导收集有效性证据的框架,因此是评估设计和验证工作中不可或缺的要素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.
期刊最新文献
The interpretation-use argument- the essential ingredient for high quality assessment design and validation. Correction: Self-directed learning and the student learning experience in undergraduate clinical science programs: a scoping review. Social support and academic procrastination in health professions students: the serial mediating effect of intrinsic learning motivation and academic self-efficacy. To define or not to define: a commentary on 'The case for metacognitive reflection'. Team science in interdisciplinary health professions education research: a multi-institutional case study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1