RESUMEN
CONTEXT: One central consideration in health professions education (HPE) is to ensure we are making sound and justifiable decisions based on the assessment instruments we use on health professionals. To achieve this goal, HPE assessment researchers have drawn on Kane's argument-based framework to ascertain the validity of their assessment tools. However, the original four-inference model proposed by Kane - frequently used in HPE validation research - has its limitations in terms of what each inference entails and what claims and sources of backing are housed in each inference. The under-specification in the four-inference model has led to inconsistent practices in HPE validation research, posing challenges for (i) researchers who want to evaluate the validity of different HPE assessment tools and/or (ii) researchers who are new to test validation and need to establish a coherent understanding of argument-based validation. METHODS: To address these identified concerns, this article introduces the expanded seven-inference argument-based validation framework that is established practice in the field of language testing and assessment (LTA). We explicate (i) why LTA researchers experienced the need to further specify the original four Kanean inferences; (ii) how LTA validation research defines each of their seven inferences and (iii) what claims, assumptions and sources of backing are associated with each inference. Sampling six representative validation studies in HPE, we demonstrate why an expanded model and a shared disciplinary validation framework can facilitate the examination of the validity evidence in diverse HPE validation contexts. CONCLUSIONS: We invite HPE validation researchers to experiment with the seven-inference argument-based framework from LTA to evaluate its usefulness to HPE. We also call for greater interdisciplinary dialogue between HPE and LTA since both disciplines share many fundamental concerns about language use, communication skills, assessment practices and validity in assessment instruments.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Resilience is an essential psychological trait that empowers individuals to adapt and thrive in the face of challenges. Although it is acknowledged that health professionals need to possess high levels of resilience, there has been limited research comparing how different groups of health students, particularly school leaver undergraduates and mature age graduate entry students, develop resilience in their coursework. METHODS: This study combines both objective (academic grades with validated survey results) and subjective data (interviews) to compare how resilience is related to academic coursework performance for two groups of pharmacy students: the mature age graduate entry (GE, N = 64) learners and school leaver undergraduate (UG, N = 208) learners. We employed a sequential explanatory mixed methods design using surveys, academic performance data and semi-structured interviews. The survey tapped constructs related to resilience (burnout, stressors and coping methods) while the interviews elicited a more nuanced understanding of individual and environmental factors. RESULTS: Although there was no statistical difference in burnout experience between the two groups, GE students exhibited more positive resilience attitudes than UG when selecting resilience statements on the survey. Both cohorts indicated in the survey that engaging in distraction activities (physical exercise, sleeping, listening to music, anything other than the stressor) was their most preferred method of relieving stress. Within UG student survey responses, those who indicated support from partners, friends and family had better academic performance, while those who did not report coping methods did worse academically. The three key environmental factors we identified that contributed to both undergraduate and graduate entry resilience were workload, feedback provision and psychosocial support. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is still a need for resilience programs geared at academic success to be implemented in higher education. This study provides objective evidence of academic success coupled with exploration into the nuances of resilience amongst different student groups. It not only highlights the differing resilience development strategies and burnout coping mechanisms in emerging health professionals, but showcases the juxtaposition of two different learner groups (UG and GE students) within a discipline. The cross-cohort facilitation of learning as in the discipline-specific strategies identified can help both groups develop resilience and inform future innovations. By comparing mature-age graduate students and younger-in-age undergraduate students, we identified a wider range of strategies and more positive attitudes to burnout in mature-age students. Health and clinical educators in university health degrees, clinical placements and clinical workplaces can develop effective training materials based on findings from this study to 1) assist undergraduate younger-age health students with developing resilience and 2) further refine mature-age health students' and practicing health professionals' resilience in today's fast-paced clinical workplaces.