Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36255650›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2022

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

Elizabeth B Takacs, Chad R Tracy

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A Eulogy for the Match.Journal of graduate medical education · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elizabeth B TakacsDepartment of Urology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242-1089, USA. elizabeth-takacs@uiowa.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2378-7806
Chad R TracyDepartment of Urology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242-1089, USA.
University of Iowa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewUrology program directors are faced with increasing numbers of applications annually, making holistic review of each candidate progressively more difficult. Efforts to streamline evaluation using traditional cognitive metrics have fallen short as these do not predict overall resident performance. Situational judgment tests (SJTs) and personality assessment tools (PATs) have been used in business and industry for decades to evaluate candidates and measure non-cognitive attributes that better predict subsequent performance. The purpose of this review is to describe what these assessments are and the current literature on the use of these metrics in medical education. RECENT

findingsSJTs relative to PATs have more original research. Data suggests that SJTs decrease bias, increase diversity, and may be predictive of performance in residency. PATs are also emerging with data to support use with ability to assess fit to program and certain traits identified more consistently among high-performing residents and correlation to performance on ACGME milestones. PATs may be more coachable than SJTs. SJTs and PATs are emerging as techniques to supplement the current resident application review process. Early evidence supports their use in undergraduate medical education as does some early preliminary results in graduate medical education.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduateInternship and ResidencyEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansPersonalityDiversityPersonality assessment toolsRecruitmentResident selectionSituational judgment testUrology

Identifiers

PMID36255650
PMCPMC9579621
OpenAlexW4306681566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.