wow-inequalities/02-data/intermediate/wos_sample/6c6bf057c37ad84cab0dfbe0503b1db8-patterson-fiona-and/info.yaml

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.'
affiliation: 'Patterson, F (Corresponding Author), Univ Cambridge, Dept Psychol, 27
  Brunel Pkwy,Pride Pk, Derby DE24 8HR, England.

  Patterson, Fiona; Ashworth, Vicki, Work Psychol Grp, Derby DE24 8HR, England.

  Patterson, Fiona, Univ Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, England.

  Zibarras, Lara, City Univ London, London, England.'
author: Patterson, Fiona and Zibarras, Lara and Ashworth, Vicki
author-email: f.patterson@workpsychologygroup.com
author_list:
- family: Patterson
  given: Fiona
- family: Zibarras
  given: Lara
- family: Ashworth
  given: Vicki
da: '2023-09-28'
doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1072619
eissn: 1466-187X
files: []
issn: 0142-159X
journal: MEDICAL TEACHER
keywords-plus: 'HIGH-STAKES SELECTION; JOB-PERFORMANCE; PREDICTIVE-VALIDITY;

  GENERAL-PRACTICE; RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS; INCREMENTAL VALIDITY; SUBGROUP

  DIFFERENCES; APPLICANT REACTIONS; PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE; PERSONAL

  STATEMENTS'
language: English
month: JAN 2
number: '1'
number-of-cited-references: '115'
orcid-numbers: Zibarras, Lara/0000-0002-9522-1679
pages: 3-17
papis_id: f089bea3dd718b13919efb323e5cb7c6
ref: Patterson2016situationaljudgement
researcherid-numbers: Zibarras, Lara/L-3792-2019
times-cited: '115'
title: 'Situational judgement tests in medical education and training: Research, theory
  and practice: AMEE Guide No. 100'
type: Article
unique-id: WOS:000367061300002
usage-count-last-180-days: '1'
usage-count-since-2013: '72'
volume: '38'
web-of-science-categories: Education, Scientific Disciplines; Health Care Sciences
  \& Services
year: '2016'