Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39589600›Full record

ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2025

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

Jacqueline Raymond, David Wei Dai, Sue McAllister

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Jacqueline RaymondSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Jacqueline.raymond@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3751-4692
David Wei DaiUCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3575-131X
Sue McAllisterSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1597-0563

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementHealth OccupationsHumansReproducibility of ResultsArgument-based approachClinical competenceInferencesValidityWorkplace-based assessment

Identifiers

PMID39589600
PMCPMC12390866

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.