Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTiffin, PA
dc.contributor.authorPaton, LW
dc.contributor.authorO'Mara, D
dc.contributor.authorMacCann, C
dc.contributor.authorLang, JWB
dc.contributor.authorLievens, F
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-09T11:26:12Z
dc.date.issued2019-12-23
dc.description.abstractCONTEXT: Historically, situational judgement tests (SJTs) have been widely used for personnel selection. Their use in medical selection in Europe is growing, with plans for further expansion into North America and Australasia, in an attempt to measure and select on 'non-academic' personal attributes. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding what such tests actually measure and how they should be designed, scored and implemented within the medical and health education selection process. In particular, the theoretical basis from which such tests are developed will determine the scoring options available, influencing their psychometric properties and, ultimately, their validity. METHODS: The aim of this article is to create an awareness of the previous theory and practice that has informed SJT development. We describe the emerging interest in the use of the SJT format to measure specific constructs (eg 'resilience', 'dependability', etc.), drawing on the tradition of 'individual differences' psychology. We compare and contrast this newer 'construct-driven' method with the traditional, pragmatic approach to SJT creation, often employed by organisational psychologists. Making reference to measurement theory, we highlight how the anticipated psychometric properties of traditional vs construct-driven SJTs are likely to differ. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to traditional SJTs, construct-driven SJTs have a strong theoretical basis, are uni- rather than multidimensional, and may behave more like personality self-report instruments. Emerging evidence also suggests that construct-driven SJTs have comparable predictive validity for workplace performance, although they may be more prone to 'faking' effects. It is possible that construct-driven approaches prove more appropriate at early stages of medical selection, where candidates have little or no health care work experience. Conversely, traditional SJTs may be more suitable for specialty recruitment, where a range of hypothetical workplace scenarios can be sampled in assessments.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipUCAT Boarden_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipWorldwide University Networken_GB
dc.identifier.citationPublished online 23 December 2019en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/medu.14011
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/40317
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWileyen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31872483en_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder embargo until 23 December 2020 in compliance with publisher policy.en_GB
dc.rights© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Educationen_GB
dc.titleSituational judgement tests for selection: Traditional vs construct-driven approachesen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2020-01-09T11:26:12Z
dc.identifier.issn0308-0110
exeter.place-of-publicationEnglanden_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalMedical Educationen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-09-26
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-12-23
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2020-01-09T11:20:53Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.panelCen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record