How do validity experts conceptualise argumentation? It's a rhetorical question

Area of Science:

• Health Professions Education
• Assessment Validity
• Argumentation Theory

Background:

• Health professions education (HPE) increasingly uses 'validity as an argument' framework.
• The practical and theoretical integration of argumentation theory in HPE validity is underexplored.
• Operationalizing validity arguments requires a deeper understanding of underlying theory.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore how HPE validity scholars conceptualize assessment validity arguments and argumentation.
• To understand the potential consequences of these conceptualizations on validation practices.
• To identify gaps between theoretical understanding and practical application of validity arguments in HPE.

Main Methods:

• Critical case sampling identified 16 HPE assessment validity experts from four countries.
• Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts.
• Reflexive thematic analysis was used to develop key themes.

Main Results:

• HPE validity is conceptualized as a social and situated argument in theory.
• The practical application of validity is hindered by a lack of audience and evaluation.
• Current validation practices in HPE are often misaligned with theoretical principles, rooted in post-positivist rather than interpretivist approaches.

Conclusions:

• There is a significant gap between the theoretical adoption of 'validity as an argument' and its practical implementation in HPE.
• Validation practices in HPE need to become more context-dependent, audience-centric, and inclusive.
• Integrating argumentation theory more deeply is crucial for effective validation in HPE.