Validity as a social imperative: users’ and leaders’ perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: was proposed as an emerging conceptualization of validity in the assessment literature in health professions education (HPE). To further develop our understanding, we explored the perceived acceptability and anticipated feasibility of validity as a social imperative with users and leaders engaged with assessment in HPE in Canada. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interpretive description study. Purposeful and snowball sampling were used to recruit participants for semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups. Each transcript was analyzed by two team members and discussed with the team until consensus was reached. Results: We conducted five focus group and eleven interviews with two different stakeholder groups (users and leaders). Our findings suggest that the participants perceived the concept of validity as a social imperative as acceptable. Regardless of group, participants shared similar considerations regarding: the limits of traditional validity models, the concept's timeliness and relevance, the need to clarify some terms used to characterize the concept, the similarities with modern theories of validity, and the anticipated challenges in applying the concept in practice. In addition, participants discussed some limits with current approaches to validity in the context of workplace-based and programmatic assessment. Conclusion: Validity as a social imperative can be interwoven throughout existing theories of validity and may represent how HPE is adapting traditional models of validity in order to respond to the complexity of assessment in HPE; however, challenges likely remain in operationalizing the concept prior to its implementation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".