Dataset Information

Collecting Validity Evidence: A Hands-on Workshop for Medical Education Assessment Instruments.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There is an increasing call for developing validity evidence in medical education assessment. The literature lacks a practical resource regarding an actual development process. Our workshop teaches how to apply principles of validity evidence to existing assessment instruments and how to develop new instruments that will yield valid data.

Methods

The literature, consensus findings of curricula and content experts, and principles of adult learning guided the content and methodology of the workshop. The workshop underwent stringent peer review prior to presentation at one international and three national academic conferences. In the interactive workshop, selected domains of validity evidence were taught with sequential cycles of didactics, demonstration, and deliberate practice with facilitated feedback. An exercise guide steered participants through a stepwise approach. Using Likert-scale items and open-response questions, an evaluation form rated the workshop's effectiveness, captured details of how learners reached the objectives, and determined participants' plans for future work.

Results

The workshop demonstrated generalizability with successful implementation in diverse settings. Sixty-five learners, the majority being clinician-educators, completed evaluations. Learners rated the workshop favorably for each prompt. Qualitative comments corroborated the workshop's effectiveness. The active application and facilitated feedback components allowed learners to reflect in real time as to how they were meeting a particular objective.

Discussion

This feasible and practical educational intervention fills a literature gap by showing the medical educator how to apply validity evidence to both existing and in-development assessment instruments. Thus, it holds the potential to significantly impact learner and, subsequently, patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Paul CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6507922 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExtended reality, which encompasses virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR), is increasingly used in medical education. Studies assessing the effectiveness of these new educational modalities should measure relevant outcomes using outcome measurement tools with validity evidence.ObjectiveOur aim is to determine the choice of outcomes, measurement instruments, and the use of measurement instruments with validity evidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of VR, AR, and MR in medical student education.MethodsWe conducted a systematic mapping review. We searched 7 major bibliographic databases from January 1990 to April 2020, and 2 reviewers screened the citations and extracted data independently from the included studies. We report our findings in line with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.ResultsOf the 126 retrieved RCTs, 115 (91.3%) were on VR and 11 (8.7%) were on AR. No RCT on MR in medical student education was found. Of the 115 studies on VR, 64 (55.6%) were on VR simulators, 30 (26.1%) on screen-based VR, 9 (7.8%) on VR patient simulations, and 12 (10.4%) on VR serious games. Most studies reported only a single outcome and immediate postintervention assessment data. Skills outcome was the most common outcome reported in studies on VR simulators (97%), VR patient simulations (100%), and AR (73%). Knowledge was the most common outcome reported in studies on screen-based VR (80%) and VR serious games (58%). Less common outcomes included participants' attitudes, satisfaction, cognitive or mental load, learning efficacy, engagement or self-efficacy beliefs, emotional state, competency developed, and patient outcomes. At least one form of validity evidence was found in approximately half of the studies on VR simulators (55%), VR patient simulations (56%), VR serious games (58%), and AR (55%) and in a quarter of the studies on screen-based VR (27%). Most studies used assessment methods that were implemented in a nondigital format, such as paper-based written exercises or in-person assessments where examiners observed performance (72%).ConclusionsRCTs on VR and AR in medical education report a restricted range of outcomes, mostly skills and knowledge. The studies largely report immediate postintervention outcome data and use assessment methods that are in a nondigital format. Future RCTs should include a broader set of outcomes, report on the validity evidence of the measurement instruments used, and explore the use of assessments that are implemented digitally.

Project description:BackgroundAssessment of undergraduate students using assessment instruments in the clinical setting is known to be complex. The aim of this study was therefore to examine whether two different assessment instruments, containing learning objectives (LO`s) with similar content, results in similar assessments by the clinical supervisors and to explore clinical supervisors' experiences of assessment regarding the two different assessment instruments.MethodA mixed-methods approach was used. Four simulated care encounter scenarios were evaluated by 50 supervisors using two different assessment instruments. 28 follow-up interviews were conducted. Descriptive statistics and logistic binary regression were used for quantitative data analysis, along with qualitative thematic analysis of interview data.ResultWhile significant differences were observed within the assessment instruments, the differences were consistent between the two instruments, indicating that the quality of the assessment instruments were considered equivalent. Supervisors noted that the relationship between the students and supervisors could introduce subjectivity in the assessments and that working in groups of supervisors could be advantageous. In terms of formative assessments, the Likert scale was considered a useful tool for evaluating learning objectives. However, supervisors had different views on grading scales and the need for clear definitions. The supervisors concluded that a complicated assessment instrument led to limited very-day usage and did not facilitate formative feedback. Furthermore, supervisors discussed how their experiences influenced the use of the assessment instruments, which resulted in different descriptions of the experience. These differences led to a discussion of the need of supervisor teams to enhance the validity of assessments.ConclusionThe findings showed that there were no significant differences in pass/fail gradings using the two different assessment instruments. The quantitative data suggests that supervisors struggled with subjectivity, phrasing, and definitions of the LO´s and the scales used in both instruments. This resulted in arbitrary assessments that were time-consuming and resulted in limited usage in the day-to-day assessment. To mitigate the subjectivity, supervisors suggested working in teams and conducting multiple assessments over time to increase assessment validity.