ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2025
Using Kane's validity framework to examine the implications of feedback in simulation-based assessments.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adapting the TeamSTEPPS team performance observation tool for dyadic interprofessional VR simulations (vTPOT): a multi-step validation study.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Article
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
backgroundSimulation modalities have been increasingly used within programmatic assessment systems, yet educators typically have not collected and appraised validity evidence to justify such uses. Kane's validity framework offers a contemporary approach to conducting validation studies of assessment practices. Under the framework, educators collect and appraise validity evidence according to four inferences: the scoring of performance, the generalization of scores to other assessment contexts, the extrapolation of assessment performance to real-world contexts, and the implications or consequences of assessment decisions for learners, educators, programs, patients, and society. We developed a simulation-based echocardiography competence assessment tool (ECAT) and collected validity evidence to evaluate its use as an assessment for learning. We applied Kane's validity framework to evaluate the utility of the ECAT, with a focus on the implications of the assessment for promoting trainees' learning.
methodsWe implemented the ECAT in 2017, collecting simulation-based performance data and subsequent interview data. Fourteen cardiology trainees were assessed using the ECAT by four raters, and their performance was video-recorded. After trainees reviewed their performance videos and feedback, we conducted individual interviews with them and the raters who provided feedback. Directed content analysis generated implications and scoring evidence, and quantitative analyses generated scoring and extrapolation evidence. All evidence was critically appraised to form a validity argument about using ECAT as an assessment for learning.
resultsParticipants reported that ECAT scores accurately represented trainees'performance, and that the feedback helped identify learning opportunities. Inter-rater reliability was high at ICC = 0.913 (95% CI 0.81-0.97). Participants' ECAT scores correlated with their end-of-rotation cardiology exam scores (r = 0.66, p = 0.02) and had positive associations with raters' judgments of the diagnostic quality of their scans, and with their reported numbers of echocardiograms seen, performed, and interpreted.
conclusionsOur integrated analysis produced a data-informed validity argument supporting the use of the ECAT as a simulation-based assessment for learning. The findings also highlighted multiple areas for further research to optimize the ECAT. Our illustrative example of Kane's validity framework aims to support simulation educators as they are increasingly called on to justify the use of simulation-based assessments in programmatic and competency-based assessment systems.
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.