How are SJT Questions Created?

David Metcalfe, Harveer Dev
{"title":"How are SJT Questions Created?","authors":"David Metcalfe, Harveer Dev","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198805809.003.0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The SJT questions were created following the professional attributes identified from the FY1 job analysis. Questions were written by volunteers at a series of dedicated workshops. The volunteers were not all doctors but should have been familiar with the FY1 role and have worked with junior doctors within the previous two years. The ISFP Project Group employed 89 people to write SJT questions, of whom 69 (77.5%) were senior doctors, two (2.2%) were lay representatives, and the remainder were undeclared. In terms of background, 59 (66.3%) were from a range of acute specialties and 12 (13.5%) from community specialties. This team created a bank of 453 possible questions. These were scrutinized by a team of psychologists who accepted 360 questions as passing this initial stage. A select few writers were asked to moderate all questions to ensure that scenarios were realistic and the terminology was in use across the UK. This group eliminated additional questions, leaving a total of 306. A series of focus groups was then held with foundation doctors who scrutinized the test instructions and up to 20 questions each. They proposed a number of amendments and whittled down the total question bank to 275 items. Once a question bank was established, it was trialled using a panel of subject ‘experts’, i.e. people with similar qualifications to the question writers. Questions survived this process if they achieved a satisfactory level of concordance, i.e. enough experts independently arrived at the same answer under test conditions. A total of 200 questions went forward to be used in the SJT pilots. The SJT model underwent two pilots. The second and larger of these took place in 13 UK medical schools, involving 639 final- year students. Students reported that the content seemed relevant to the Foundation Programme (85% agreed) and that the questions were fair (73.3%). The reasons for understanding how questions are created are to appreciate the following: ● A lot of thought has gone into every question. There should be no ambiguities (unless intended) or ‘tricks’. ● They are written (largely) by senior doctors who are presumably interested in medical training and development.","PeriodicalId":165468,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Assess and Progress: Situational Judgement Test","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Assess and Progress: Situational Judgement Test","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805809.003.0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The SJT questions were created following the professional attributes identified from the FY1 job analysis. Questions were written by volunteers at a series of dedicated workshops. The volunteers were not all doctors but should have been familiar with the FY1 role and have worked with junior doctors within the previous two years. The ISFP Project Group employed 89 people to write SJT questions, of whom 69 (77.5%) were senior doctors, two (2.2%) were lay representatives, and the remainder were undeclared. In terms of background, 59 (66.3%) were from a range of acute specialties and 12 (13.5%) from community specialties. This team created a bank of 453 possible questions. These were scrutinized by a team of psychologists who accepted 360 questions as passing this initial stage. A select few writers were asked to moderate all questions to ensure that scenarios were realistic and the terminology was in use across the UK. This group eliminated additional questions, leaving a total of 306. A series of focus groups was then held with foundation doctors who scrutinized the test instructions and up to 20 questions each. They proposed a number of amendments and whittled down the total question bank to 275 items. Once a question bank was established, it was trialled using a panel of subject ‘experts’, i.e. people with similar qualifications to the question writers. Questions survived this process if they achieved a satisfactory level of concordance, i.e. enough experts independently arrived at the same answer under test conditions. A total of 200 questions went forward to be used in the SJT pilots. The SJT model underwent two pilots. The second and larger of these took place in 13 UK medical schools, involving 639 final- year students. Students reported that the content seemed relevant to the Foundation Programme (85% agreed) and that the questions were fair (73.3%). The reasons for understanding how questions are created are to appreciate the following: ● A lot of thought has gone into every question. There should be no ambiguities (unless intended) or ‘tricks’. ● They are written (largely) by senior doctors who are presumably interested in medical training and development.
SJT问题是如何产生的?
SJT问题是根据FY1职位分析确定的专业属性创建的。问题是由志愿者在一系列专门的研讨会上编写的。志愿者并不都是医生,但应该熟悉FY1的角色,并在过去两年内与初级医生一起工作。ISFP项目组共聘用89人编写SJT问题,其中资深医生69人(77.5%),非专业代表2人(2.2%),其余未申报。从背景来看,59例(66.3%)来自各种急症专科,12例(13.5%)来自社区专科。这个团队创建了一个包含453个可能问题的库。这些问题由一组心理学家仔细审查,他们接受了360个问题作为通过这个初始阶段的问题。经过挑选的几位作者被要求缓和所有问题,以确保场景是真实的,并且这些术语在英国各地都得到了使用。这组人去掉了额外的问题,总共留下306个问题。随后,基金会的医生们进行了一系列的焦点小组讨论,他们仔细审查了测试说明,每个人最多有20个问题。他们提出了一些修正案,并将总题库减少到275个。一旦建立了题库,就会由一个主题“专家”小组进行试验,即与出题者具有相似资格的人。如果问题达到了令人满意的一致性水平,即在测试条件下有足够多的专家独立得出相同的答案,那么问题就能在这个过程中幸存下来。总共有200个问题将用于SJT试点。SJT模型经历了两次试验。第二项规模更大的调查在13所英国医学院进行,涉及639名最后一年的学生。学生报告说,内容似乎与基础课程相关(85%同意),问题是公平的(73.3%)。理解问题是如何产生的原因如下:●每个问题都经过了很多思考。不应该有歧义(除非有意)或“诡计”。•它们(大部分)由资深医生撰写,他们可能对医学培训和发展感兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信