Abstract:Issue: The way educators think about the nature of competence, the approaches one selects for the assessment of competence, what generated data implies, and what counts as good assessment now involve broader and more diverse interpretive processes. Broadening philosophical positions in assessment has educators applying different interpretations to similar assessment concepts. As a result, what is claimed through assessment, including what counts as quality, can be different for each of us despite using similar activities and language. This is leading to some uncertainty on how to proceed or worse, provides opportunities for questioning the legitimacy of any assessment activity or outcome. While some debate in assessment is inevitable, most have been within philosophical positions (e.g., how best to minimize error), whereas newer debates are happening across philosophical positions (e.g., whether error is a useful concept). As new ways of approaching assessment have emerged, the interpretive nature of underlying philosophical positions has not been sufficiently attended to. Evidence: We illustrate interpretive processes of assessment in action by: (a) summarizing the current health professions assessment context from a philosophical perspective as a way of describing its evolution; (b) demonstrating implications in practice using two examples (i.e., analysis of assessment work and validity claims); and (c) examining pragmatism to demonstrate how even within specific philosophical positions opportunities for variable interpretations still exist. Implications: Our concern is not that assessment designers and users have different assumptions, but that practically, educators may unknowingly (or insidiously) apply different assumptions, and methodological and interpretive norms, and subsequently settle on different views on what serves as quality assessment even for the same assessment program or event. With the state of assessment in health professions in flux, we conclude by calling for a philosophically explicit approach to assessment, and underscore assessment as, fundamentally, an interpretive process - one which demands the careful elucidation of philosophical assumptions to promote understanding and ultimately defensibility of assessment processes and outcomes.

Intuition & Calibration

Is the Important Position of Intuition in Philosophy Reasonable

The Nature and Measurement of Intuition: Cognitive and Behavioral Interests, Personality, and Experiences

Acquiescing to intuition in individuals prone to delusions: alterations in dual processes and cognitive control

Priming intuition disfavors instrumental harm but not impartial beneficence

Carnap, Quine, and Putnam on Methods of Inquiry

Meta‐analytic Investigations of the Relation Between Intuition and Analysis

Attending to Variable Interpretations of Assessment Science and Practice

Experimental Debates on Universality of Gettier Intuition

What Neuroscience Can Tell about Intuitive Processes in the Context of Perceptual Discovery

Quantifying empirical support for theories of consciousness: a tentative methodological framework

Dual-process reflective equilibrium: rethinking the interplay between intuition and reflection in moral reasoning

The Information in Intuitionistic Logic

Calibrating Model-Based Inferences and Decisions

Does Meta-induction Justify Induction: Or Maybe Something Else?

More than meets the gut: a prototype analysis of the lay conceptions of intuition and analysis

Naturalness, Extra-Empirical Theory Assessments, and the Implications of Skepticism

Tempering the tension between science and intuition

The Noonday Argument: Fine-Graining, Indexicals, and the Nature of Copernican Reasoning

Levels of analytic work and levels of pathology: the work of calibration

Illusionism Big and Small: Some Options for Explaining Consciousness