ArticlePloS one2023
Validity of constructed-response situational judgment tests in training programs for the health professions: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring personal characteristics in applicants to German medical schools: Piloting an online Situational Judgement Test with an open-ended response format.GMS journal for medical education · 2024Article
- Broad vs. narrow traits: a scoping review of measuring personality traits in teacher selection using the situational judgment test.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSituational judgments tests have been increasingly used to help training programs for the health professions incorporate professionalism attributes into their admissions process. While such tests have strong psychometric properties for testing professional attributes and are feasible to implement in high-volume, high-stakes selection, little is known about constructed-response situational judgment tests and their validity.
methodsWe will conduct a systematic review of primary published or unpublished studies reporting on the association between scores on constructed-response situational judgment tests and scores on other tests that measure personal, interpersonal, or professional attributes in training programs for the health professions. In addition to searching electronic databases, we will contact academics and researchers and undertake backward and forward searching. Two reviewers will independently screen the papers and decide on their inclusion, first based on the titles and abstracts of all citations, and then according to the full texts. Data extraction will be done independently by two reviewers using a data extraction form to chart study details and key findings. Studies will be assessed for the risk of bias and quality by two reviewers using the "Quality In Prognosis Studies" tool. To synthesize evidence, we will test the statistical heterogeneity and conduct a psychometric meta-analysis using a random-effects model. If adequate data are available, we will explore whether the meta-analytic correlation varies across different subgroups (e.g., race, gender). DISCUSSION: The findings of this study will inform best practices for admission and selection of applicants for training programs for the health professions and encourage further research on constructed-response situational judgment tests, in particular their validity.
trial registrationThe protocol for this systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO [CRD42022314561]. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022314561.
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.