Literature DB >> 26313700

Situational judgement tests in medical education and training: Research, theory and practice: AMEE Guide No. 100.

Fiona Patterson1,2, Lara Zibarras3, Vicki Ashworth1.   

Abstract

Why use SJTs? Traditionally, selection into medical education professions has focused primarily upon academic ability alone. This approach has been questioned more recently, as although academic attainment predicts performance early in training, research shows it has less predictive power for demonstrating competence in postgraduate clinical practice. Such evidence, coupled with an increasing focus on individuals working in healthcare roles displaying the core values of compassionate care, benevolence and respect, illustrates that individuals should be selected on attributes other than academic ability alone. Moreover, there are mounting calls to widen access to medicine, to ensure that selection methods do not unfairly disadvantage individuals from specific groups (e.g. regarding ethnicity or socio-economic status), so that the future workforce adequately represents society as a whole. These drivers necessitate a method of assessment that allows individuals to be selected on important non-academic attributes that are desirable in healthcare professionals, in a fair, reliable and valid way. What are SJTs? Situational judgement tests (SJTs) are tests used to assess individuals' reactions to a number of hypothetical role-relevant scenarios, which reflect situations candidates are likely to encounter in the target role. These scenarios are based on a detailed analysis of the role and should be developed in collaboration with subject matter experts, in order to accurately assess the key attributes that are associated with competent performance. From a theoretical perspective, SJTs are believed to measure prosocial Implicit Trait Policies (ITPs), which are shaped by socialisation processes that teach the utility of expressing certain traits in different settings such as agreeable expressions (e.g. helping others in need), or disagreeable actions (e.g. advancing ones own interest at others, expense). Are SJTs reliable, valid and fair? Several studies, including good quality meta-analytic and longitudinal research, consistently show that SJTs used in many different occupational groups are reliable and valid. Although there is over 40 years of research evidence available on SJTs, it is only within the past 10 years that SJTs have been used for recruitment into medicine. Specifically, evidence consistently shows that SJTs used in medical selection have good reliability, and predict performance across a range of medical professions, including performance in general practice, in early years (foundation training as a junior doctor) and for medical school admissions. In addition, SJTs have been found to have significant added value (incremental validity) over and above other selection methods such as knowledge tests, measures of cognitive ability, personality tests and application forms. Regarding differential attainment, generally SJTs have been found to have lower adverse impact compared to other selection methods, such as cognitive ability tests. SJTs have the benefit of being appropriate both for use in selection where candidates are novices (i.e. have no prior role experience or knowledge such as in medical school admissions) as well as settings where candidates have substantial job knowledge and specific experience (as in postgraduate recruitment for more senior roles). An SJT specification (e.g. scenario content, response instructions and format) may differ depending on the level of job knowledge required. Research consistently shows that SJTs are usually found to be positively received by candidates compared to other selection tests such as cognitive ability and personality tests. Practically, SJTs are difficult to design effectively, and significant expertise is required to build a reliable and valid SJT. Once designed however, SJTs are cost efficient to administer to large numbers of candidates compared to other tests of non-academic attributes (e.g. personal statements, structured interviews), as they are standardised and can be computer-delivered and machine-marked.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26313700     DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1072619

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Teach        ISSN: 0142-159X            Impact factor:   3.650


  33 in total

1.  Using a situational judgement test for selection into dental core training: a preliminary analysis.

Authors:  E Rowett; F Patterson; F Cousans; K Elley
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  Bring Back the Interview for Exiting Medical Students in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Neel Sharma
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2016-07

3.  The value of situational judgement tests for assessing non-academic attributes in dental selection.

Authors:  N Taylor; S Mehra; K Elley; F Patterson; F Cousans
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-06-10       Impact factor: 1.626

4.  Development and Validation of a Situational Judgement Test to Assess Professionalism.

Authors:  Kathryn J Smith; Charlotte Flaxman; Michelle Z Farland; Aaron Thomas; Shauna M Buring; Karen Whalen; Fiona Patterson
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.047

5.  Evaluation of a Situational Judgement Test to Develop Non-Academic Skills in Pharmacy Students.

Authors:  Fiona Patterson; Kirsten Galbraith; Charlotte Flaxman; Carl M J Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.047

6.  A Five-Minute Situational Judgment Test to Assess Empathy in First-Year Student Pharmacists.

Authors:  Michael D Wolcott; Carly Lupton-Smith; Wendy C Cox; Jacqueline E McLaughlin
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.047

7.  Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

Authors:  I C McManus; Andrew Christopher Harborne; Hugo Layard Horsfall; Tobin Joseph; Daniel T Smith; Tess Marshall-Andon; Ryan Samuels; Joshua William Kearsley; Nadine Abbas; Hassan Baig; Joseph Beecham; Natasha Benons; Charlie Caird; Ryan Clark; Thomas Cope; James Coultas; Luke Debenham; Sarah Douglas; Jack Eldridge; Thomas Hughes-Gooding; Agnieszka Jakubowska; Oliver Jones; Eve Lancaster; Calum MacMillan; Ross McAllister; Wassim Merzougui; Ben Phillips; Simon Phillips; Omar Risk; Adam Sage; Aisha Sooltangos; Robert Spencer; Roxanne Tajbakhsh; Oluseyi Adesalu; Ivan Aganin; Ammar Ahmed; Katherine Aiken; Alimatu-Sadia Akeredolu; Ibrahim Alam; Aamna Ali; Richard Anderson; Jia Jun Ang; Fady Sameh Anis; Sonam Aojula; Catherine Arthur; Alena Ashby; Ahmed Ashraf; Emma Aspinall; Mark Awad; Abdul-Muiz Azri Yahaya; Shreya Badhrinarayanan; Soham Bandyopadhyay; Sam Barnes; Daisy Bassey-Duke; Charlotte Boreham; Rebecca Braine; Joseph Brandreth; Zoe Carrington; Zoe Cashin; Shaunak Chatterjee; Mehar Chawla; Chung Shen Chean; Chris Clements; Richard Clough; Jessica Coulthurst; Liam Curry; Vinnie Christine Daniels; Simon Davies; Rebecca Davis; Hanelie De Waal; Nasreen Desai; Hannah Douglas; James Druce; Lady-Namera Ejamike; Meron Esere; Alex Eyre; Ibrahim Talal Fazmin; Sophia Fitzgerald-Smith; Verity Ford; Sarah Freeston; Katherine Garnett; Whitney General; Helen Gilbert; Zein Gowie; Ciaran Grafton-Clarke; Keshni Gudka; Leher Gumber; Rishi Gupta; Chris Harlow; Amy Harrington; Adele Heaney; Wing Hang Serene Ho; Lucy Holloway; Christina Hood; Eleanor Houghton; Saba Houshangi; Emma Howard; Benjamin Human; Harriet Hunter; Ifrah Hussain; Sami Hussain; Richard Thomas Jackson-Taylor; Bronwen Jacob-Ramsdale; Ryan Janjuha; Saleh Jawad; Muzzamil Jelani; David Johnston; Mike Jones; Sadhana Kalidindi; Savraj Kalsi; Asanish Kalyanasundaram; Anna Kane; Sahaj Kaur; Othman Khaled Al-Othman; Qaisar Khan; Sajan Khullar; Priscilla Kirkland; Hannah Lawrence-Smith; Charlotte Leeson; Julius Elisabeth Richard Lenaerts; Kerry Long; Simon Lubbock; Jamie Mac Donald Burrell; Rachel Maguire; Praveen Mahendran; Saad Majeed; Prabhjot Singh Malhotra; Vinay Mandagere; Angelos Mantelakis; Sophie McGovern; Anjola Mosuro; Adam Moxley; Sophie Mustoe; Sam Myers; Kiran Nadeem; Reza Nasseri; Tom Newman; Richard Nzewi; Rosalie Ogborne; Joyce Omatseye; Sophie Paddock; James Parkin; Mohit Patel; Sohini Pawar; Stuart Pearce; Samuel Penrice; Julian Purdy; Raisa Ramjan; Ratan Randhawa; Usman Rasul; Elliot Raymond-Taggert; Rebecca Razey; Carmel Razzaghi; Eimear Reel; Elliot John Revell; Joanna Rigbye; Oloruntobi Rotimi; Abdelrahman Said; Emma Sanders; Pranoy Sangal; Nora Sangvik Grandal; Aadam Shah; Rahul Atul Shah; Oliver Shotton; Daniel Sims; Katie Smart; Martha Amy Smith; Nick Smith; Aninditya Salma Sopian; Matthew South; Jessica Speller; Tom J Syer; Ngan Hong Ta; Daniel Tadross; Benjamin Thompson; Jess Trevett; Matthew Tyler; Roshan Ullah; Mrudula Utukuri; Shree Vadera; Harriet Van Den Tooren; Sara Venturini; Aradhya Vijayakumar; Melanie Vine; Zoe Wellbelove; Liora Wittner; Geoffrey Hong Kiat Yong; Farris Ziyada; Oliver Patrick Devine
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 8.  Evaluating the Whole Applicant: Use of Situational Judgment Testing and Personality Testing to Address Disparities in Resident Selection.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Takacs; Chad R Tracy
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2022-10-18       Impact factor: 2.862

9.  Measuring hygiene competence: the picture-based situational judgement test HygiKo.

Authors:  Susanne Katharina Heininger; Maria Baumgartner; Fabian Zehner; Rainer Burgkart; Nina Söllner; Pascal O Berberat; Martin Gartmeier
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2021-07-30       Impact factor: 2.463

10.  A Situational Judgment Test to Assess Students' Achievement of Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards 3 and 4.

Authors:  Teresa DeLellis; Marwa Noureldin; Sharon K Park; Kelly M Shields; Alicia Bryant; Aleda M H Chen; Heather Mw Petrelli
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 2.047

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.