View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

How argumentation theory can inform assessment validity: A critical review.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How argumentation theory can inform assessment validity: A critical review.
Authors: Kinnear, Benjamin, Schumacher, Daniel J., Driessen, Erik W., Varpio, Lara
Source: Medical Education. Nov2022, Vol. 56 Issue 11, p1064-1075. 12p. 1 Diagram, 1 Chart.
Subjects: Evaluation of medical education, Debate, Communication, Interdisciplinary education, Logic, Goal (Psychology)
Abstract: Introduction: Many health professions education (HPE) scholars frame assessment validity as a form of argumentation in which interpretations and uses of assessment scores must be supported by evidence. However, what are purported to be validity arguments are often merely clusters of evidence without a guiding framework to evaluate, prioritise, or debate their merits. Argumentation theory is a field of study dedicated to understanding the production, analysis, and evaluation of arguments (spoken or written). The aim of this study is to describe argumentation theory, articulating the unique insights it can offer to HPE assessment, and presenting how different argumentation orientations can help reconceptualize the nature of validity in generative ways. Methods: The authors followed a five‐step critical review process consisting of iterative cycles of focusing, searching, appraising, sampling, and analysing the argumentation theory literature. The authors generated and synthesised a corpus of manuscripts on argumentation orientations deemed to be most applicable to HPE. Results: We selected two argumentation orientations that we considered particularly constructive for informing HPE assessment validity: New rhetoric and informal logic. In new rhetoric, the goal of argumentation is to persuade, with a focus on an audience's values and standards. Informal logic centres on identifying, structuring, and evaluating arguments in real‐world settings, with a variety of normative standards used to evaluate argument validity. Discussion: Both new rhetoric and informal logic provide philosophical, theoretical, or practical groundings that can advance HPE validity argumentation. New rhetoric's foregrounding of audience aligns with HPE's social imperative to be accountable to specific stakeholders such as the public and learners. Informal logic provides tools for identifying and structuring validity arguments for analysis and evaluation. In #HPE we often conceptualize validity as an argument. But what is argumentation? From what guiding principles might HPE draw? @Midwest_MedPeds @DrDanSchumacher @erikwdriessen @LaraVarpio review argumentation theory to explore these questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 159610319
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: How argumentation theory can inform assessment validity: A critical review.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kinnear%2C+Benjamin%22">Kinnear, Benjamin</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schumacher%2C+Daniel+J%2E%22">Schumacher, Daniel J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Driessen%2C+Erik+W%2E%22">Driessen, Erik W.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Varpio%2C+Lara%22">Varpio, Lara</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Medical+Education%22">Medical Education</searchLink>. Nov2022, Vol. 56 Issue 11, p1064-1075. 12p. 1 Diagram, 1 Chart.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+of+medical+education%22">Evaluation of medical education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate%22">Debate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication%22">Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+education%22">Interdisciplinary education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Logic%22">Logic</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+%28Psychology%29%22">Goal (Psychology)</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Introduction: Many health professions education (HPE) scholars frame assessment validity as a form of argumentation in which interpretations and uses of assessment scores must be supported by evidence. However, what are purported to be validity arguments are often merely clusters of evidence without a guiding framework to evaluate, prioritise, or debate their merits. Argumentation theory is a field of study dedicated to understanding the production, analysis, and evaluation of arguments (spoken or written). The aim of this study is to describe argumentation theory, articulating the unique insights it can offer to HPE assessment, and presenting how different argumentation orientations can help reconceptualize the nature of validity in generative ways. Methods: The authors followed a five‐step critical review process consisting of iterative cycles of focusing, searching, appraising, sampling, and analysing the argumentation theory literature. The authors generated and synthesised a corpus of manuscripts on argumentation orientations deemed to be most applicable to HPE. Results: We selected two argumentation orientations that we considered particularly constructive for informing HPE assessment validity: New rhetoric and informal logic. In new rhetoric, the goal of argumentation is to persuade, with a focus on an audience's values and standards. Informal logic centres on identifying, structuring, and evaluating arguments in real‐world settings, with a variety of normative standards used to evaluate argument validity. Discussion: Both new rhetoric and informal logic provide philosophical, theoretical, or practical groundings that can advance HPE validity argumentation. New rhetoric's foregrounding of audience aligns with HPE's social imperative to be accountable to specific stakeholders such as the public and learners. Informal logic provides tools for identifying and structuring validity arguments for analysis and evaluation. In #HPE we often conceptualize validity as an argument. But what is argumentation? From what guiding principles might HPE draw? @Midwest_MedPeds @DrDanSchumacher @erikwdriessen @LaraVarpio review argumentation theory to explore these questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=159610319
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/medu.14882
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 1064
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation of medical education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Debate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Logic
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goal (Psychology)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: How argumentation theory can inform assessment validity: A critical review.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kinnear, Benjamin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schumacher, Daniel J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Driessen, Erik W.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Varpio, Lara
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Text: Nov2022
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 03080110
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 56
            – Type: issue
              Value: 11
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Medical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1