title: Validity and reliability of an instrument for assessing case analyses in bioengineering ethics education.
abstract: Assessment in ethics education faces a challenge. From the perspectives of teachers, students, and third-party evaluators like the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and the National Institutes of Health, assessment of student performance is essential. Because of the complexity of ethical case analysis, however, it is difficult to formulate assessment criteria, and to recognize when students fulfill them. Improvement in students' moral reasoning skills can serve as the focus of assessment. In previous work, Rosa Lynn Pinkus and Claire Gloeckner developed a novel instrument for assessing moral reasoning skills in bioengineering ethics. In this paper, we compare that approach to existing assessment techniques, and evaluate its validity and reliability. We find that it is sensitive to knowledge gain and that independent coders agree on how to apply it.
authors.affiliation: Center for Digital Data, Analytics & Adaptive Learning, Pearson, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, ilya.goldin@pearson.com.
authors.forename: Ilya M
authors.initials: IM
authors.lastname: Goldin
authors.forename: Rosa Lynn
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Pinkus
authors.forename: Kevin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Ashley
mesh_terms: D057005:Bioengineering / Q000193:education / Q000941:ethics*; D004521:Educational Measurement / Q000592:standards*; D004995:Ethics, Professional / Q000193:education*; D006801:Humans; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires / Q000592:standards*
references.citation: Phys Ther. 2005 Mar;85(3):257-68
references.pmid: 15733050
references.citation: Med Educ. 2001 Mar;35(3):295-302
references.pmid: 11260454
references.citation: J Med Philos. 1991 Feb;16(1):29-51
references.pmid: 2010719
references.citation: Acad Med. 1994 Jul;69(7):591-3
references.pmid: 8054065
references.citation: Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1999 Jul-Aug;21(4):284-95
references.pmid: 10514952
references.citation: Med Teach. 2004 Jun;26(4):366-73
references.pmid: 15203852
references.citation: Med Educ. 2002 May;36(5):489-97
references.pmid: 12028400
references.citation: Sci Eng Ethics. 2005 Apr;11(2):257-76
references.pmid: 15915863
references.citation: APA Newsl Philos Med. 2000 Fall;00(1):128-32
references.pmid: 15470789
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 1992 Sep;18(3):142-7
references.pmid: 1404281
references.citation: Theor Med Bioeth. 1999 Jun;20(3):299-308
references.pmid: 11645170
references.citation: Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Jun;21(3):767-87
references.pmid: 25820218
references.citation: Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
references.pmid: 843571
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 May;46(5):423-9
references.pmid: 8501467
references.citation: J Med Ethics. 1999 Oct;25(5):367-74
references.pmid: 10536759