No identified procedural skills assessment tool has established construct validity; only face and content validity are reported¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2012 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2015: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Construct validity was not established in any of the checklists or global assessment tools utilised in the pre-practice setting. → Morris Marie C. 2012
Evidence¶
Morris Marie C. 2012¶
Morris Marie C., Gallagher Tom K., Ridgway Paul F. (2012). Tools used to assess medical students competence in procedural skills at the end of a primary medical degree: a systematic review. Medical Education Online. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427596/
q3 · i? · review · r2
Systematic review synthesis across the 12 tools. The review states that "Construct validity was not established in any of the checklists or global assessment tools", with validity limited to face and content established through expert review.
"Construct validity was not established in any of the checklists or global assessment tools utilised in the pre-practice setting, yet Reznick (19) reports the importance of ensuring construct validity of a tool in surgical skills assessment where there is an expectation of increasing levels of competence with increasing years of training to identify and instigate remediation of students at the earliest opportunity."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Most identified assessment tools demonstrate construct or concurrent validity, but predictive validity is absent across tool categories — reports the opposite
- Checklists show reasonable validity and reliability but have an early ceiling effect and are most appropriate for novice learners in formative settings — reports the opposite
- Most reviewed simulation studies demonstrated face and content validity, but few assessed construct or predictive validity — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.