ArticlePerspectives on medical education2024
Validity in the Next Era of Assessment: Consequences, Social Impact, and Equity.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conceptualising and assessing interdependent clinical performances: Early insights from emergency medicine and paediatric faculty.Medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- CBME As a Philosophy of Training: Balancing Fidelity and Flexibility in Emergency Medicine.AEM education and training · 2026Review
- Validity in the Era of Competency-Based Health Professions Education: Tensions and Potential Solutions.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
- The patient as teacher: a four-phase blueprint for institutional change.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- The impact of GenAI on applicant behaviour, performance, and interview reliability during virtual interviews for medical school admissions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Introducing the Next Era in Assessment.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- Comparison of Certainty-Based Marking (CBM) and Number Right Scoring (NRS) in Multiple-Choice Question (MCQ) Assessments: A Prospective Cohort Study of Second-Year Medical Students.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Assessing the Utility of AI Versus Human-Created MCQs in Pediatric Medical Education.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Validity has long held a venerated place in education, leading some authors to refer to it as the "sine qua non" or "cardinal virtue" of assessment. And yet, validity has not held a fixed meaning; rather it has shifted in its definition and scope over time. In this Eye Opener, the authors explore if and how current conceptualizations of validity fit a next era of assessment that prioritizes patient care and learner equity. They posit that health profession education's conceptualization of validity will change in three related but distinct ways. First, consequences of assessment decisions will play a central role in validity arguments. Second, validity evidence regarding impacts of assessment on patients and society will be prioritized. Third, equity will be seen as part of validity rather than an unrelated concept. The authors argue that health professions education has the agency to change its ideology around validity, and to align with values that predominate the next era of assessment such as high-quality care and equity for learners and patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.