Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37868340›Full record

ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2023

Supporting validity: steps to contextualise applications for technology and assessment, for learning.

Sandra Kemp, Viktoria C T Goddard, Katharine Boursicot, Richard Fuller, Vishna Devi Nadarajah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Sandra KempUniversity of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1689-0541
Viktoria C T GoddardUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, UK.
Katharine BoursicotHealth Professional Assessment Consultancy, Singapore, Singapore.
Richard FullerChristie Education, Manchester, UK.
Vishna Devi NadarajahInternational Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the paper, the authors offer perspectives on the uses of technology and assessment, that support learning. The perspectives are viewed through validity (from the field of assessment) as a framework and they discuss four aspects of an interconnected technology, learning and assessment space that represent theory informed, authentic practice. The four are: 1) integrated coherence for learning, assessment and technology; 2) responsibilities for equity, diversity, inclusion and wellbeing; 3) sustainability; and 4) balancing resources in global contexts. The authors propose steps and considerations for medical and health professions educators who need to contextualise applications for technology, learning and assessment, for positive impact for learners, faculty, institutions and patient care.

Indexed as

assessmentequitylearningsustainabilitytechnologyvalidity

Identifiers

PMID37868340
PMCPMC10587818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.