ArticleCureus2024
Developing a Situational Judgement Test to Assess Clinical Judgement in Fourth-Year Medical Students: A Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction Assessing clinical judgement objectively and economically presents a challenge in academic medicine. The authors developed a situational judgement test (SJT) to measure fourth-year medical students' clinical judgement. Methods A knowledge-based, single-best-answer SJT was developed by a panel of subject matter experts (SMEs). The SJT included 30 scenarios, each with five response options ranked ordinally from most to least appropriate. A computer-based format was used, and the SJT was piloted by two cohorts of fourth-year medical students at California University of Science and Medicine in 2022 and 2023 upon completion of an internship preparation course. Subsequently, students completed an optional survey. Evaluated scoring methods included original ordinal ranking, dichotomous, dichotomous with negative correction, distance from SME best answer, and distance from SME best answer squared. Results The SJT was completed by 142 fourth-year medical students. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.39 to 0.85, depending on the scoring method used. The distance-from-SME-best-answer-squared method yielded the highest internal consistency, which was considered acceptable. Using this scoring method, the mean score was 72.89 (SD = 48.32, range = 26-417), and the standard error of measurement was 18.41. Item analysis found that seven (23%) scenarios were of average difficulty, 13 (43%) had a good or satisfactory discrimination index, and nine (30%) had a distractor efficiency of at least 66%. Most students preferred the SJT to a traditional multiple-choice exam (16; 62%) and felt it was an appropriate tool to assess clinical judgement (15; 58%). Conclusions The authors developed and piloted an SJT to assess clinical judgement among medical students. Although not achieving validation, subsequent development of the SJT will focus on expanding the SME concordance panel, improving difficulty and discrimination indices, and conducting parallel forms reliability and adverse impact analyses.
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.