Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 3 - A Systematic Review of Argument-Based Validation Studies in the Field of Language Testing (2000–2018)

  • from Part I - Basic Concepts and Uses of Validity Argument in Language Testing and Assessment
  • Edited by Carol A. Chapelle, Iowa State University, Erik Voss, Teachers College, Columbia University
  • Book:
    Validity Argument in Language Testing
    Published online:
    14 January 2021
    Print publication:
    21 January 2021, pp 45-70

  • Summary

    Since the publication of Kane (2006) on argument-based validation and the validation project by Chapelle, Enright, and Jamieson (2008), a trend of employing argument-based approach in language testing validation research has emerged as observed by Chapelle and Voss (2013). To better understand this recent trend, this systematic review study identified and analyzed the argument-based validation studies published from 2000 to 2018. A comprehensive literature search was conducted with multiple search terms (e.g., validity, argument-based validation, inferences, etc.) on a variety of research publication sources, including peer-reviewed academic journals, research reports, and dissertations. After applying pre-established inclusion criteria, 70 studies were retained, including 45 journal articles or research reports and 25 doctoral dissertations. The claims and inferences employed in these studies were analyzed into themes and categorized under Chapelle, Enright, and Jamieson (2008)’s framework. In addition, the research methodology addressing the warrants, rebuttals and backing in each study was documented and reviewed. Based on the results of this analysis, we make suggestions about constructing interpretation and use arguments as well as evaluating the coherence and plausibility of the validity arguments in various testing contexts.

  • SHARING AND COLLECTING HOSPITAL-BASED HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT REPORTS INTERNATIONALLY: IS AN EXTENSIVE PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS REALISTIC?

  • Joost Verbeek, Mickaël Hiligsmann, Americo Cicchetti, Marco Marchetti
  • Journal:
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care / Volume 34 / Issue 5 / 2018
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 October 2018, pp. 527-534
  • Objectives:

    The emergence of new medical technologies and budget restrictions has led to a substantial increase in the use of hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA). This qualitative study explores whether there is a possibility and interest to realize the collection and dissemination of HB-HTA reports on an international scale by exploring the opinions from HB-HTA experts.

    Methods:

    A survey was designed and sent to an international group of experts knowledgeable in HB-HTA from eighteen different countries. The survey contained questions about their opinions on the collection and distribution of HB-HTA information, and about the meaningful dimensions, barriers and values about a database. The data obtained were analyzed through the method of content analysis.

    Results:

    A total of thirty-six experts (response rate of 18.3 percent) responded to the survey. The obtained data shows that all respondents agree that the collection of HB-HTA reports is useful. Moreover, 41.7 percent of respondents that are in the position of sharing HB-HTA reports (n = 24) mentioned that full HB-HTA reports can be shared. Many other respondents reported that confidentiality (45.7 percent) and investment into a database (40.0 percent) are important barriers for the dissemination of HB-HTA reports.

    Conclusions:

    There seem to be enough demand and willingness to share all or most reports by a large community of HB-HTA producers. Therefore, there is a need for a well-designed database with regular maintenance and complete, comparable, and qualitative HB-HTA reports. The database of the AdHopHTA project could potentially facilitate this process.