ArticlePerspectives on medical education2026
Validity in the Era of Competency-Based Health Professions Education: Tensions and Potential Solutions.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessment in health professions education has evolved dramatically in the past hundred years. The way in which we conceptualize validity has also required evolution, particularly in the era of competency-based health professions education (CBHPE). The CBHPE approach compels us to reexamine a historical focus on objectivity, individual assessments, and standards of achievement alone. In this manuscript, the authors explore the implications CBHPE places on validity, highlighting three tension points: the paradigm of assessment, levels of validation, and the reference for competence. The authors examine health profession education's historical orientation toward the post-positivist paradigm including an emphasis on standardization, reliability, and truth-seeking. This is contrasted with two alternative paradigms, constructivism and pragmatism, which prioritize different data sources to build validity arguments. In the section on levels of validation, the authors explore tensions between validity arguments that are holistic (considers the entire picture of performance) and those which use a decomposition approach (distilling competence into individual components). Finally, the authors consider the value in measuring learner competence using norm-referenced standards, criterion-reference approaches, or the measurement of growth throughout (and beyond) their training. Ultimately, the authors propose a balanced approach to address each tension, considering the strengths and weaknesses of traditional methods with the modern needs of CBHPE.
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.