An explanatory mixed methods study on the validity and validation of students’ assessment results in the undergraduate surgery course

References

• Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. 2000. Toolbox of assessment methods. www.ACGME.org
   Google Scholar
• Ahmad RG, Hamed OAE. 2014. Impact of adopting a newly developed blueprinting method and relating it to item analysis on students’ performance. Med Teach. 36:S55–S61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Wassia R, Hamed O, Al-Wassia H, Alafari R, Jamjoom R. 2015. Cultural challenges to implementation of formative assessment in Saudi Arabia: an exploratory study. Med Teach. 37:S9–S19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association. 1999. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington (DC): American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• [APA] American Psychological Association. 1954. Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Washington (DC): The Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bartfay WJ, Rombough R, Howse E, LeBlanc R. 2004. The OSCE approach in nursing education: objective structured clinical examinations can be effective vehicles for nursing education and practice by promoting the mastery of clinical skills and decision-making in controlled and safe learning environments. Can Nurse. 100:18–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beckman TJ, Cook DA, Mandrekar JN. 2005. What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching? J Gen Intern Med. 20:1159–1164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryman A, Bell E. 2007. Business research methods. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Coderre S, Woloschuk W, McLaughlin K. 2009. Twelve tips for blueprinting. Med Teach. 31:322–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins KMT, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Sutton IL. 2006. A Model Incorporating the Rationale and Purpose for Conducting Mixed-Methods Research in Special Education and Beyond”, learning disabilities. Contemporary J. 4:67–100.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J, Plano Clark V. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL, Gutmann M, Hanson W. 2003. Advanced mixed methods research designs. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; p. 209–240.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16:297–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley J, Humphris G, Jolly B. 2002. Assessing health professionals. Med Educ. 36:800–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dawson S, Manderson I, Tallo VL. 1993. A manual for the use of focus groups. Boston (MA): International Nutrition Foundation for Developing Countries (INFDC).
   Google Scholar
• Downing SM. 2003a. Validity: on meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ. 37:830–837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downing SM. 2003b. Item response theory: applications of modern test theory in medical education. Med Educ. 37:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downing SM. 2004. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ. 38:1006–1012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster SL, Cone JD. 1995. Validity issues in clinical assessment. Psychol Assess. 7:248–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginsburg HP. 2009. The challenge of formative assessment in mathematics education: children’s minds, teachers’ minds. Hum Dev. 52:109–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haladyna TM, Downing SM, Rodriguez MC. 2002. A review of multiple choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Appl Meas Educ. 15:309–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdy H. 2006. Blueprinting for the assessment of health care professionals. Clin Teach. 3:175–179.
   Google Scholar
• Hassan S. 2011. Oral examination as objective structured authentic viva (OSAV). NMJ. 3:35–40.
   Google Scholar
• Hetzel SM. 1997. Basic concepts in item and test analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeast Educational Research Association, Austin, January, 1997. http://ericae.net/ft/tamu/Espy.htm
   Google Scholar
• Hubley AM, Zumbo BD. 1996. A dialectic on validity: where we have been and where we are going. J Gen Psychol. 123:207–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie A. 2004. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res. 33:14–26.
   Google Scholar
• Jones MG, Jones BD, Hargrove T. 2003. The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kane MT. 2006. Content-related validity evidence in test development. In: Downing SM, Haladyna TM, editors. Handbook of test development. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates; p. 131–153.
   Google Scholar
• Kreiter CD, Bergus GR. 2007. A study of two clinical performance scores: assessing the psychometric characteristics of a combined score derived from clinical evaluation forms and OSCEs. Med Educ Online. 12:10. http://www.med-ed-online.org
   Google Scholar
• Kreuger RA. 1994. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Major DA. 2005. OSCEs – seven years on the bandwagon: the progress of an objective structured clinical evaluation programme. Nurse Educ Today. 25:442–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mertens DM. 2010. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Messick S. 1995. Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from person’s responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychologist. 50:741–749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messick S. 1998. Test validity: a matter of consequences. Soc Indic Res. 45:35–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messick S. Validity. 1989. In: Linn RL, editor. Educational measurement. 3rd ed. New York (NY): American Council on Education and Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Miller G. 1990. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 65 (Suppl.9):S63–S67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niglas K. 2004. The combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods in educational research. Tallinn: Tallinn Pedagogical University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norcini J, Burch V. 2007. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 31. Med Teach. 29:855–871.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. 2008. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 13:92–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PMETB. 2007. Developing and maintaining an assessment system – a PMETB guide to good practice. http://www.gmcuk.org/Assessment_good_practice_v0207.pdf_31385949.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Reckase M. 1998. Consequential validity from the test developer’s perspective. Educ Meas: Issues Practice. 17:13–16.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz A, editor. 2011. Assessment in graduate medical education: a primer for pediatric program directors. Chapel Hill (NC): American Board of Pediatrics.
   Google Scholar
• Todd MR, Moore CEG. 2010. Medical finals: passing the clinical. 3rd ed. Carnegie Book Production, Lancaster Printed and bound in the UK by CPI Antony Rowe; xxiv–xxv.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Vleuten C. 1996. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 1:41–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wass V, Van der Vleuten CPM, Shatzer J, Jones R. 2001. Assessment of clinical competence. Lancet. 357:945–949.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zumbo BD. 2007. Validity: foundational issues and statistical methodology. In: Rao CR, Sinharay S, editors. Psychometrics (Handbook of statistics) vol. 26. Amsterdam: Elsevier; p. 45–79.
   Google Scholar