ArticleMedical education2018
Integrity situational judgement test for medical school selection: judging 'what to do' versus 'what not to do'.
Article in Medical education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Implementation of Situational Judgment Tests as an Evaluation Method for Training Oncology Physicians: Application in the KOKON-KTO Training.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Situational judgment using ethical reasoning in Saudi undergraduate pharmacy students.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Is lack of integrity a useful concept when dealing with health and social care pre-registration student fitness to practise cases?The Medico-legal journal · 2020Article
- MUM effect in medical education: taking into account the recipient and training setting.Medical education · 2019Article
- When strategy must follow structure….GMS journal for medical education · 2019Article
- The United Kingdom Foundation Programme Application: Does Current Literature Unfairly Criticize It?Advances in medical education and practice · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextDespite their widespread use in medical school selection, there remains a lack of clarity on exactly what situational judgement tests (SJTs) measure.
objectivesWe aimed to develop an SJT that measures integrity by combining critical incident interviews (inductive approach) with an innovative deductive approach. The deductive approach guided the development of the SJT according to two established theoretical models, of which one was positively related to integrity (honesty-humility [HH]) and one was negatively related to integrity (cognitive distortions [CD]). The Integrity SJT covered desirable (HH-based) and undesirable (CD-based) response options. We examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the Integrity SJT and compared the validity of the HH-based and CD-based subscores.
methodsThe Integrity SJT was administered to 402 prospective applicants at a Dutch medical school. The Integrity SJT consisted of 57 scenarios, each followed by four response options, of which two represented HH facets and two represented CD categories. Three SJT scores were computed, including a total, an HH-based and a CD-based score. The validity of these scores was examined according to their relationships with external integrity-related measures (convergent validity) and self-efficacy (discriminant validity).
resultsThe three SJT scores correlated significantly with all integrity-related measures and not with self-efficacy, indicating convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, the CD-based SJT score correlated significantly more strongly than the HH-based SJT score with two of the four integrity-related measures.
conclusionsAn SJT that assesses the ability to correctly recognise CD-based response options as inappropriate (i.e. what one should not do) seems to have stronger convergent validity than an SJT that assesses the ability to correctly recognise HH-based response options as appropriate (i.e. what one should do). This finding might be explained by the larger consensus on what is considered inappropriate than on what is considered appropriate in a challenging situation. It may be promising to focus an SJT on the ability to recognise what one should not do.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.