ArticleJournal of advances in medical education & professionalism2026
Surgical Professionalism: Development and Educational Suitability Assessment of a Combined Situational Judgment Test and Guided Reflection among General Surgery Residents in Indonesia.
Article in Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Assessing professionalism in a valid, objective, and cost-effective manner remains a persistent challenge in clinical education. In Indonesia, this issue is particularly relevant in surgical training, where residents must integrate technical competence with professional behaviour in high-stakes, resource-limited settings. This study aimed to develop and evaluate the educational suitability of a Situational Judgement Test (SJT) combined with guided written reflection to assess and promote professionalism among general surgery residents. Methods: A mixed-methods sequential design was used. An SJT was developed through blueprinting, item writing, and expert validation, resulting in 26 scenarios across six professionalism domains. Residents (n = 64 at baseline; n = 44 completers) completed a proctored pre-test SJT, participated in an 8-week guided reflection program (four submissions), and completed an asynchronous post-test SJT. Educational suitability evidence was examined through content validity (CVI) and internal consistency (Kendall's W). No construct or criterion validity testing was performed. Reflections were scored using Kember's four-level reflective framework by three independent assessors with Fleiss' Kappa for inter-rater agreement. Changes in SJT and reflection depth were analysed using paired tests and correlation analysis. Data were analysed using SPSS version 23. Results: The mean CVI across items was 0.97 (range 0.90-1.00). The mean SJT score increased significantly from 386.59 ± 19.31 to 420.45 ± 12.56 among completers, with a mean difference of 33.86 ± 16.03 (p < 0.001). Reliability improved from Kendall's W = 0.38 to 0.52. Sensitivity analysis comparing baseline pre-test scores between completers (386.6 ± 19.3) and dropouts (391.0 ± 15.5) showed no significant difference (Mann-Whitney U, p = 0.258), indicating limited attrition bias. Reflective depth progressed from median level 1 to 4 across four submissions (median Δ = +3, p < 0.001), with substantial inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.68). There was no significant correlation between Δ reflection and Δ SJT (r = 0.059, p = 0.703). Conclusions: Integrating SJT with guided reflection demonstrated strong content validity, internal consistency, and educational benefit, supporting its suitability for formative educational use in surgical professionalism training.
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.