AS the use and adoption of simulation based
training and assessment increase in urology, it becomes
important for the design and interpretation
of education studies to be aligned with behavioral
science standards and the greater health care community.
In the last 60 years the American Psychological
Association, American Educational Research
Association and the National Council on Measurement
in Education have developed and introduced
6 editions of the “standards” to guide the validation
process.1 Adoption of the 1974 standards has guided
much of the urology simulation education based
literature to date as a result of the sentinel
and invaluable article for surgical disciplines by
Gallagher et al2 and McDougall’s 2007 article
applying these concepts to urology.3 The crux of
these standards includes the division of validity into
what are now well-known subjective concepts such
as content validity and face validity, and objective
concepts such as construct validity and criterion
validity with little to no association with an overall
“construct” to wrap around the evidence gained.