Search

Introduction: Health professions education (HPE) has adopted the conceptualization of validity as an argument. However, the theoretical and practical aspects of how validity arguments should be developed, used and evaluated in HPE have not been deeply explored. Articulating the argumentation theory undergirding validity and validation can help HPE better operationalise validity as an argument. To better understand this, the authors explored how HPE validity scholars conceptualise assessment validity arguments and argumentation, seeking to understand potential consequences of these views on validation practices. Methods: The authors used critical case sampling to identify HPE assessment validity experts in three ways: (1) participation in a prominent validity research group, (2) appearing in a bibliometric study of HPE validity publications and (3) authorship of recent HPE validity literature. Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 16 experts in HPE assessment validity from four different countries. The authors used reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes relevant to their research question. Results: The authors developed three themes grounded in participants' responses: (1) In theory, HPE validity is a social and situated argument. (2) In practice, the absence of audience and evaluation stymies the social nature of HPE validity. (3) Lack of validity argumentation creates and maintains power differentials within HPE. Participants articulated that current HPE validation practices are rooted in post‐positivist epistemology when they should be situated (i.e. context‐dependent), audience‐centric and inclusive. Discussion: When discussing validity argumentation in theory, participants' descriptions reflect an interpretivist lens for evaluation that is misaligned with real‐world validity practices. This misalignment likely arises from HPE's adoption of "validity as an argument" as a slogan, without integrating theoretical and practical principles of argumentation theory. How do HPE experts conceptualize the argumentation aspect of validity? @Midwest_MedPeds @ab_martini @LaraVarpio @erikdriessen @DrDanSchumacher explore the gap between theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPurposeMethodsResultsConclusionsInternational Medical Programmes (IMPs) form a distinctive modality in medical education, with diverse student populations, English as a language of instruction and ‘globalized’ curricula. A lack of common understanding of IMPs’ purposes and role in the medical education landscape triggers critiques. This study aims to document the effects of different discourses used to justify the purpose of IMPs.We use a discourse analysis approach to explore the different ways in which the purposes of IMPs are constructed at the regulatory, institutional, and individual level, and how these discourses interact. The research situates in two IMPs, in the Netherlands and in Hungary. Key-informant interviews, policy documents, and scholarly literature form the archive.The purpose of IMPs is constructed discursively around three distinct narratives and associated practices: around serving the institutions that host them, around serving the (global) public interest, and around serving individual students. Co-existence and misalignments of these three discourses cause conflicting practices and confusion among stakeholders.This study illustrates how diverging perspectives on internationalization in medical education create tensions for learners and staff. Articulating a clear and explicit meaning to internationalization may reduce uncertainties, and may reinforce realistic expectations of what constitutes a good outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]