Ginsburg, Shiphra

Purpose In-training evaluation reports (ITERs) constitute an integral component of medical student and postgraduate physician trainee (resident) assessment. ITER narrative comments have received less attention than the numeric scores. The authors sought both to determine what validity evidence informs the use of narrative comments from ITERs for assessing medical students and residents and to identify evidence gaps. Method Reviewers searched for relevant English-language studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and ERIC (last search June 5, 2015), and in reference lists and author files. They included all original studies that evaluated ITERs for qualitative assessment of medical students and residents. Working in duplicate, they selected articles for inclusion, evaluated quality, and abstracted information on validity evidence using Kane’s framework (inferences of scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and implications). Results Of 777 potential articles, 22 met inclusion criteria. The scoring inference is supported by studies showing that rich narratives are possible, that changing the prompt can stimulate more robust narratives, and that comments vary by context. Generalization is supported by studies showing that narratives reach thematic saturation and that analysts make consistent judgments. Extrapolation is supported by favorable relationships between ITER narratives and numeric scores from ITERs and non-ITER performance measures, and by studies confirming that narratives reflect constructs deemed important in clinical work. Evidence supporting implications is scant. Conclusions The use of ITER narratives for trainee assessment is generally supported, except that evidence is lacking for implications and decisions. Future research should seek to confirm implicit assumptions and evaluate the impact of decisions.

Quantitative scores fail to capture all important features of learner performance. This awareness has led to increased use of qualitative data when assessing health professionals. Yet the use of qualitative assessments is hampered by incomplete understanding of their role in forming judgments, and lack of consensus in how to appraise the rigor of judgments therein derived. The authors articulate the role of qualitative assessment as part of a comprehensive program of assessment, and translate the concept of validity to apply to judgments arising from qualitative assessments. They first identify standards for rigor in qualitative research, and then use two contemporary assessment validity frameworks to reorganize these standards for application to qualitative assessment. Standards for rigor in qualitative research include responsiveness, reflexivity, purposive sampling, thick description, triangulation, transparency, and transferability. These standards can be reframed using Messick’s five sources of validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relationships with other variables, and consequences) and Kane’s four inferences in validation (scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and implications). Evidence can be collected and evaluated for each evidence source or inference. The authors illustrate this approach using published research on learning portfolios. The authors advocate a “methods-neutral” approach to assessment, in which a clearly stated purpose determines the nature of and approach to data collection and analysis. Increased use of qualitative assessments will necessitate more rigorous judgments of the defensibility (validity) of inferences and decisions. Evidence should be strategically sought to inform a coherent validity argument.

Context Assessment is central to medical education and the validation of assessments is vital to their use. Earlier validity frameworks suffer from a multiplicity of types of validity or failure to prioritise among sources of validity evidence. Kane's framework addresses both concerns by emphasising key inferences as the assessment progresses from a single observation to a final decision. Evidence evaluating these inferences is planned and presented as a validity argument. Objectives We aim to offer a practical introduction to the key concepts of Kane's framework that educators will find accessible and applicable to a wide range of assessment tools and activities. Results All assessments are ultimately intended to facilitate a defensible decision about the person being assessed. Validation is the process of collecting and interpreting evidence to support that decision. Rigorous validation involves articulating the claims and assumptions associated with the proposed decision (the interpretation/use argument), empirically testing these assumptions, and organising evidence into a coherent validity argument. Kane identifies four inferences in the validity argument: Scoring (translating an observation into one or more scores); Generalisation (using the score[s] as a reflection of performance in a test setting); Extrapolation (using the score[s] as a reflection of real‐world performance), and Implications (applying the score[s] to inform a decision or action). Evidence should be collected to support each of these inferences and should focus on the most questionable assumptions in the chain of inference. Key assumptions (and needed evidence) vary depending on the assessment's intended use or associated decision. Kane's framework applies to quantitative and qualitative assessments, and to individual tests and programmes of assessment. Conclusions Validation focuses on evaluating the key claims, assumptions and inferences that link assessment scores with their intended interpretations and uses. The Implications and associated decisions are the most important inferences in the validity argument.