MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123813688 · doi:10.1037/amp0000695

Appropriate validation standards for licensure examinations: Comment on Callahan et al. (2020).

2021· letter· en· W3123813688 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D Turner, John Hunsley, Emil Rodolfa

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Psychologist · 2021
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLicensureMedicineMedical physicsMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Callahan et al. (2020) asserted that the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (Part 2-Skills) has not undergone appropriate validation. Although they recognized that content validity is the foundation of licensure examinations, they suggested additional validational strategies that are not recommended for licensure examination development. This response clarifies the appropriate validation standards for the examination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.122
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.122
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0880.060
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.011

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.375 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican PsychologistSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207