ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Use of situational judgment test for evaluating nonacademic attributes in ophthalmology fellowship selection.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn medical fellowship selection, evaluating both academic and nonacademic attributes is essential for clinical success. This study integrates cognitive assessments with construct-driven situational judgment tests (SJTs) to evaluate nonacademic traits, aiming to identify well-rounded candidates during the ophthalmology fellowship selection process.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 68 candidates who appeared for the interview in 2024. Academic attributes were assessed through structured interviews in which candidates prepared and delivered PowerPoint presentations on ophthalmology topics. These were evaluated using a rubric aligned with Bloom's six cognitive levels: recall, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Nonacademic attributes were assessed using verbal SJTs based on the 5Cs framework: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, curiosity, and creativity.
resultsThe median difference between presentation scores (61.1%, interquartile range (IQR) = 35) and SJT scores (85.4%, IQR = 25) was statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.001), with candidates performing better in the SJT. Further, the rank-based correlation between presentation and SJT scores was not statistically significant (Spearman correlation, P = 0.545), indicating that candidates who scored high on the Bloom-based presentation did not consistently score high or low on the SJT, suggesting that the two assessments measure distinct attributes.
conclusionAcademic and nonacademic attributes represent distinct skill sets. Therefore, a combined evaluation that incorporates both domains may more effectively identify well-rounded candidates for ophthalmology fellowships. This dual-assessment approach can be implemented through a virtual platform, enabling a more holistic and equitable evaluation of applicants for entry-level fellowship selection.
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.