Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35875440›Full record

ArticleCanadian medical education journal2022

Validity as a social imperative: users' and leaders' perceptions.

Mélanie Marceau, Christina St-Onge, Frances Gallagher, Meredith Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Eight ways to get a grip on validity as a social imperative.Canadian medical education journal · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Medical schools don't change; people do.Canadian medical education journal · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mélanie MarceauSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Christina St-OngeDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Frances GallagherSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Meredith YoungInstitute of Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Recently, Methods: We conducted a qualitative interpretive description study. Purposeful and snowball sampling were used to recruit participants for semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups. Each transcript was analyzed by two team members and discussed with the team until consensus was reached. Results: We conducted five focus group and eleven interviews with two different stakeholder groups (users and leaders). Our findings suggest that the participants perceived the concept of validity as a social imperative as acceptable. Regardless of group, participants shared similar considerations regarding: the limits of traditional validity models, the concept's timeliness and relevance, the need to clarify some terms used to characterize the concept, the similarities with modern theories of validity, and the anticipated challenges in applying the concept in practice. In addition, participants discussed some limits with current approaches to validity in the context of workplace-based and programmatic assessment. Conclusion: Validity as a social imperative can be interwoven throughout existing theories of validity and may represent how HPE is adapting traditional models of validity in order to respond to the complexity of assessment in HPE; however, challenges likely remain in operationalizing the concept prior to its implementation.

Identifiers

PMID35875440
PMCPMC9297243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.