Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42761927›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026

Reframing Validity: How Values Shape Assessment in Postgraduate Medical Education.

Sandra Monteiro, Matthew Sibbald, Matthew Lineberry, Teresa M Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Sandra MonteiroDepartment of Medicine, DeGroote School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8723-5942
Matthew SibbaldDepartment of Medicine, DeGroote School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0022-2370
Matthew LineberryIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Rockhurst University, Kansas City, MO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0177-5305
Teresa M ChanDepartment of Medicine, DeGroote School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6104-462X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Values (value judgments, beliefs, etc.) have implications for clinician educators' conceptualization of postgraduate education, as well as their interpretation and application of assessment data. Seeking clarity around individual, program, and systems values within a competency based medical education (CBME) program, the authors sought evidence of distinct values reflected in the CBME assessment literature. Methods: The authors conducted an exploratory critical review study in two phases aligned with Kahlke's method. In phase one (from September 2020 to December 2022) the authors worked towards five interconnected goals: focus, generate data, appraise, sample, and analyze. In phase two (October 2022), the authors invited peer review of the process and findings. Results: Three values and related assessment goals were distilled from the literature on competency-based assessment: 1) Safety: Assessment protects patient safety, ensuring that only clinicians who demonstrate safe practice are advanced; 2) Development: Assessment supports the development of learners' competence, rather than ranking or differentiating between individuals; and 3) Agility: Assessment evolves in response to context and should be adapted to better support learners and faculty. The authors linked the values within assessment programs to practical consequences for measuring clinical competence. Discussion: The authors articulated how values within academic medicine directly shape the interpretation and judgement of competence. Deliberately balancing the values of patient safety, learner development, and systems agility can prevent harm when any single value dominates. Preparing faculty to recognize and navigate these value tensions is essential for fair, transparent, and defensible assessment decisions in CBME.

Indexed as

Educational MeasurementEducation, Medical, GraduateClinical CompetenceCompetency-Based EducationHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID42761927
PMCPMC13588219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.