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

170 lines
5.7 KiB
YAML
Raw Normal View History

2023-09-28 14:46:10 +00:00
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'
2023-10-01 08:15:07 +00:00
type: article
2023-09-28 14:46:10 +00:00
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'