Oxford Assess and Progress: Situational Judgement Test最新文献

{"title":"How are SJT Questions Created?","authors":"David Metcalfe, Harveer Dev","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198805809.003.0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805809.003.0015","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128280613","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How to use this Book","authors":"D. Metcalfe, Harveer Dev","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198805809.003.0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805809.003.0018","url":null,"abstract":"Section 2 of this book is organized into five chapters, each representing a professional attribute to which SJT questions are mapped: commitment to professionalism (Chapter 9), coping with pressure (Chapter 10), effective communication (Chapter 11), patient focus (Chapter 12), and working effectively as part of a team (Chapter 13). Each section contains 40 questions, split equally between multiple choice and ranking items. The book ends with Section 3, which contains abbreviated practice tests (Chapter 14) that use a mix of different questions. You will notice throughout the book that most questions cover multiple domains. This is true for those in the SJT as well. It is easy to imagine scenarios that test all five domains with very little effort; for example, a senior nurse pressures you to do something to the detriment of a patient. Do not become distracted by trying to guess which domain(s) are being tested. Although the SJT requires knowledge, the answers to questions cannot be learnt by rote. This is what the test creators mean when they say candidates cannot be ‘coached’ to score highly. The benefit in working through these examples is thinking about the issues they raise. For this reason, the ‘wrong’ answers are at least as valuable as those that are ‘correct’. When practising questions in other subjects (e.g. anatomy), most students read the question, choose an answer, and then check that they picked correctly. The best approach to this book is to read a scenario and then consciously think about which details make (C) a better choice than (D), or vice versa. Only when you have done this should you check our answer and explanation. SJT questions go through a commendably thorough process of assessment and evaluation. The answers are determined by a consensus panel of ‘experts’, most of whom are senior doctors. Our own questions have been through an abbreviated review process using the contributors listed on. This group of contributors broadly reflects the type of people used by the SJT team to validate their items, i.e. members include Clinical Supervisors, doctors with recent experience of the Foundation Programme, and others working closely with FY1 doctors (e.g. senior nurses).","PeriodicalId":165468,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Assess and Progress: Situational Judgement Test","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123381462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}