Dataset Information

Integrity situational judgement test for medical school selection: judging 'what to do' versus 'what not to do'.

ABSTRACT:

Context

Despite their widespread use in medical school selection, there remains a lack of clarity on exactly what situational judgement tests (SJTs) measure.

Objectives

We aimed to develop an SJT that measures integrity by combining critical incident interviews (inductive approach) with an innovative deductive approach. The deductive approach guided the development of the SJT according to two established theoretical models, of which one was positively related to integrity (honesty-humility [HH]) and one was negatively related to integrity (cognitive distortions [CD]). The Integrity SJT covered desirable (HH-based) and undesirable (CD-based) response options. We examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the Integrity SJT and compared the validity of the HH-based and CD-based subscores.

Methods

The Integrity SJT was administered to 402 prospective applicants at a Dutch medical school. The Integrity SJT consisted of 57 scenarios, each followed by four response options, of which two represented HH facets and two represented CD categories. Three SJT scores were computed, including a total, an HH-based and a CD-based score. The validity of these scores was examined according to their relationships with external integrity-related measures (convergent validity) and self-efficacy (discriminant validity).

Results

The three SJT scores correlated significantly with all integrity-related measures and not with self-efficacy, indicating convergent and discriminant validity. In addition, the CD-based SJT score correlated significantly more strongly than the HH-based SJT score with two of the four integrity-related measures.

Conclusions

An SJT that assesses the ability to correctly recognise CD-based response options as inappropriate (i.e. what one should not do) seems to have stronger convergent validity than an SJT that assesses the ability to correctly recognise HH-based response options as appropriate (i.e. what one should do). This finding might be explained by the larger consensus on what is considered inappropriate than on what is considered appropriate in a challenging situation. It may be promising to focus an SJT on the ability to recognise what one should not do.

SUBMITTER: de Leng WE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5901405 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Integrity situational judgement test for medical school selection: judging 'what to do' versus 'what not to do'.

de Leng Wendy E WE Stegers-Jager Karen M KM Born Marise Ph MP Themmen Axel P N APN

Medical education 20180119 4

<h4>Context</h4>Despite their widespread use in medical school selection, there remains a lack of clarity on exactly what situational judgement tests (SJTs) measure.<h4>Objectives</h4>We aimed to develop an SJT that measures integrity by combining critical incident interviews (inductive approach) with an innovative deductive approach. The deductive approach guided the development of the SJT according to two established theoretical models, of which one was positively related to integrity (honesty ...[more]

PMID: 29349804

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS: Tests with natural-scientific content are predictive of the success in the first semesters of medical studies. Some universities in the German speaking countries use the 'Test for medical studies' (TMS) for student selection. One of its test modules, namely "medical and scientific comprehension", measures the ability for deductive reasoning. In contrast, the Hamburg Assessment Test for Medicine, Natural Sciences (HAM-Nat) evaluates knowledge in natural sciences. In this study the predictive power of the HAM-Nat test will be compared to that of the NatDenk test, which is similar to the TMS module "medical and scientific comprehension" in content and structure. METHODS: 162 medical school beginners volunteered to complete either the HAM-Nat (N=77) or the NatDenk test (N=85) in 2007. Until spring 2011, 84.2% of these successfully completed the first part of the medical state examination in Hamburg. Via different logistic regression models we tested the predictive power of high school grade point average (GPA or "Abiturnote") and the test results (HAM-Nat and NatDenk) with regard to the study success criterion "first part of the medical state examination passed successfully up to the end of the 7(th) semester" (Success7Sem). The Odds Ratios (OR) for study success are reported. RESULTS: For both test groups a significant correlation existed between test results and study success (HAM-Nat: OR=2.07; NatDenk: OR=2.58). If both admission criteria are estimated in one model, the main effects (GPA: OR=2.45; test: OR=2.32) and their interaction effect (OR=1.80) are significant in the HAM-Nat test group, whereas in the NatDenk test group only the test result (OR=2.21) significantly contributes to the variance explained. CONCLUSIONS: On their own both HAM-Nat and NatDenk have predictive power for study success, but only the HAM-Nat explains additional variance if combined with GPA. The selection according to HAM-Nat and GPA has under the current circumstances of medical school selection (many good applicants and only a limited number of available spaces) the highest predictive power of all models.

Project description:Research indicates that certain personality traits relate to performance in the medical profession. Yet, personality testing during selection seems ineffective. In this study, we examine the extent to which different medical school selection processes call upon desirable personality characteristics in applicants.1019 of all 1055 students who entered the Dutch Bachelor of Medicine at University of Groningen, the Netherlands in 2009, 2010 and 2011 were included in this study. Students were admitted based on either top pre-university grades (n = 139), acceptance in a voluntary multifaceted selection process (n = 286), or lottery weighted for pre-university GPA. Within the lottery group, we distinguished between students who had not participated (n = 284) and students who were initially rejected (n = 310) in the voluntary selection process. Two months after admission, personality was assessed with the NEO-FFI, a measure of the five factor model of personality. We performed ANCOVA modelling with gender as a covariate to examine personality differences between the four groups.The multifaceted selection group scored higher on extraversion than all other groups(p<0.01), higher on conscientiousness than both lottery-admitted groups(p<0.01), and lower on neuroticism than the lottery-admitted group that had not participated in the voluntary selection process. The latter group scored lower on conscientiousness than all other groups(p<0.05) and lower on agreeableness than the multifaceted selection group and the top pre-university group(p<0.01).Differences between the four admission groups, though statistically significant, were relatively small. Personality scores in the group admitted through the voluntary multifaceted selection process seemed most fit for the medical profession. Personality scores in the lottery-admitted group that had not participated in this process seemed least fit for the medical profession. It seems that in order to select applicants with suitable personalities, an admission process that calls upon desirable personality characteristics is beneficial.

Project description:BackgroundSelection into medical school is highly competitive with more applicants than places. Little is known about the preparation that applicants undertake for this high stakes process. The study aims to determine what preparatory activities applicants undertake and what difficulties they encounter for each stage of the application process to medical school and in particular what impact these have on the outcome.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 1097 applicants who applied for a place in the University of Adelaide Medical School in 2007 and participated in the UMAT (Undergraduate Medicine and Health Sciences Admission Test) and oral assessment components of the selection process. The main outcome measures were an offer of an interview and offer of a place in the medical school and were analysed using logistic regression.ResultsThe odds of a successful outcome increased with each additional preparatory activity undertaken for the UMAT (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.33; P < 0.001) and the oral assessment (1.36, 1.19 to 1.55; P < 0.001) stage of selection. The UMAT preparatory activities associated with the offer of an interview were attendance of a training course by a private organisation (1.75, 1.35 to 2.27: P < 0.001), use of online services of a private organisation (1.58, 1.23 to 2.04; P < 0.001), and familiarising oneself with the process (1.52, 1.15 to 2.00; p = 0.021). The oral assessment activities associated with an offer of a place included refining and learning a personal resume (9.73, 2.97 to 31.88; P < 0.001) and learning about the course structure (2.05, 1.29 to 3.26; P = 0.022).For the UMAT, applicants who found difficulties with learning for this type of test (0.47, 0.35 to 0.63: P < 0.001), with the timing of UMAT in terms of school exams (0.48, 0.5 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and with the inability to convey personal skills with the UMAT (0.67, 0.52 to 0.86; P = 0.026) were significantly less likely to be offered an interview.ConclusionsMedical schools make an enormous effort to undertake a selection process that is fair and equitable and which selects students most appropriate for medical school and the course they provide. Our results indicate that performance in the selection processes can be improved by training. However, if these preparatory activities may be limited to those who can access them, the playing field is not even and increasing equity of access to medical schools will not be achieved.

Dataset Information

Integrity situational judgement test for medical school selection: judging 'what to do' versus 'what not to do'.

Context

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Integrity situational judgement test for medical school selection: judging 'what to do' versus 'what not to do'.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets