Oxford Assess and Progress: Situational Judgement Test

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Metcalfe ◽  
Harveer Dev
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Situational Judgement Test ◽  
Quality Feedback ◽  
Foundation Programme ◽  
Medical Career ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Practice Questions ◽  
Situational Judgement ◽  
Answer Option

Returning for a third edition, Oxford Assess and Progress: Situational Judgement Test (SJT) is THE definitive guide for students preparing to sit the Situational Judgement Test for entry into the UK Foundation Programme. This authoritative book, mapped to the Foundation Programme curriculum and GMC guidance, includes over 285 practice questions to help you maximize your SJT score. Fully revised and updated, this third edition provides over 285 questions and high-quality feedback that has been developed to clarify the ranking of every answer option, not just the correct one. All scenarios are based on real experiences informed by practising doctors and medical students who have sat the SJT to ensure that the questions closely mirror the content of the real exam. Two mock tests allow candidates to prepare for exam day and practice their timings - one of the biggest challenges in the exam. Written by consultants, this authoritative guide demystifies the SJT, allowing you to achieve the best possible score and take control of the first stage of your medical career.

How Can You Prepare?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Metcalfe ◽  
Harveer Dev
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Medical School ◽  
School Curriculum ◽  
Foundation Programme ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Look Back ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right ◽  
Situational Judgement ◽  
Over Time

The Improving Selection to the Foundation Programme (ISFP) project does not believe that it is possible to be ‘coached’ through the SJT. This is generally true. Knowing the ‘right thing to do’ in any given situation is a matter of internalized values and intuition. However, no one seriously accepts that candidates are born with a fixed level of situational judgement. This is clearly something that develops over time and therefore can change. In addition, the SJT does not set out to test your values but whether you understand the values and attitudes expected of an FY1 doctor. This is why you are instructed to answer questions as you ‘should’, not as you ‘would’. The principles on which foundation doctors should base their behaviour are learnt and internalized throughout medical school. However, knowledge of these principles can clearly be learnt in the same way as any other part of the medical school curriculum. Most final- year medical students are satisfied with the FY1 posts to which they are allocated. For 2017 entry, 74% were appointed to their firstchoice foundation school, and 94% to one of their top five preferences. Those who were not initially pleased often look back in retrospect and are satisfied with their allocations. Your score on the SJT is unlikely to make or break your career. However, the same can be said of medical school finals. You will almost certainly pass finals— upwards of 95% of final- year students do so— and your ultimate career destination is unlikely to hinge on your cumulative examination score. But this is not a reason to go into finals unprepared. The truth is that every point on the SJT, as in finals, could mean the difference between your chosen outcome and something different. A point lost on the SJT could result in your leaving your first- choice foundation school and moving across the country for work, or not having a high enough score to capture your chosen specialty as a Foundation Programme rotation. Increasing competition for FY1 posts means that not everyone can be appointed.

Does itt Work?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Metcalfe ◽  
Harveer Dev
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Internal Reliability ◽  
Cognitive Component ◽  
Foundation Programme ◽  
Public Health Training ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Situational Judgement

Improving Selection to the Foundation Programme (ISFP) undertook a wide- ranging review of options for allocating new doctors to FY1 posts. It selected the SJT. Whether the SJT works or not depends on whether it can accurately predict ‘good’ doctors. There is no real consensus about how to measure the effectiveness of foundation doctors, and so the SJT question is unlikely to ever be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. However, variations on the SJT have been used in selection to some specialties (e.g. general practice (GP) and public health training). They are also used by many firms in the commercial sector. The SJT pilots suggested a high degree of internal reliability (α = 0.79– 0.85). It was also shown that SJT performance is positively correlated with extraversion, openness, and achievement. A subsequent study (MacKenzie et al. 2017) has shown that SJT score was predicted by emotional non- defensiveness, aloofness, and empathy, as suggested by the non- cognitive component of the UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT). The SJT score is also correlated with UKFPO performance (MacKenzie et al. 2016). Interestingly, SJT score is not correlated with performance at medical school as measured by the EPM (Simon et al. 2015). Advantages of the SJT over the previously used ‘white space’ questions include the following: ● invigilated conditions so that no one can seek external help with answers ● less reliance on creative writing skills ● questions directly address prioritization, teamworking, and professionalism— all of which are important qualities for new doctors ● evidence from other sectors suggests that situational judgement questions can effectively predict job performance. Although students are unlikely to relish sitting another high- stakes examination in their final year, earlier selection methods were perceived as both burdensome and unfair. A number of studies have suggested that the SJT is unpopular amongst both medical students and faculty members (Sharma, 2015; Sharma et al. 2016). It is impossible to please everyone and you are most likely to approve of this method in retrospect if your score is high enough. Criticisms of the SJT include: ● As noted on, the SJT and EPM are not equally weighted.

scholarly journals ‘10% of your medical students will cause 90% of your problems’: a prospective correlational study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e038472
Author(s):  
Marina Sawdon ◽  
JC McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Medical School ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Correlational Study ◽  
Situational Judgement Test ◽  
The Uk

ObjectivesOur aim was to explore the relationship between medical student Conscientiousness Index scores and indicators of later clinical performance held in the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED). Objectives were to determine whether conscientiousness in first-year and second-year medical students predicts later performance in medical school and in early practice. Policy implications would permit targeted remediation where necessary or aid in selection.DesignA prospective correlational study.SettingA single UK medical school and early years of practice, 2005–2018.ParticipantsThe data were obtained from the UKMED on 858 students. Full outcome data was available for variable numbers of participants, as described in the text.Main outcome measuresScores on the UK Foundation Programme Office’s Situational Judgement Test (SJT) and Educational Performance Measure (EPM), the Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA) and Annual Review of Competency Progression (ARCP) outcomes.ResultsLinear regression analysis shows Conscientiousness Index scores significantly correlate with pregraduate and postgraduate performance variables: SJT scores (R=0.373, R2=0.139, B=0.066, p<0.001, n=539); PSA scores (R=0.249, R2=0.062, B=0.343, p<0.001, n=462); EPM decile scores for the first (lowest) decile are significantly lower than the remaining 90% (p=0.003, n=539), as are PSA scores (p<0.001, n=463), and ARCP year 2 scores (p=0.019, n=517). The OR that students in the first decile fail to achieve the optimum ARCP outcome is 1.6126 (CI: 1.1400 to 2.2809, p=0.0069, n=618).ConclusionsConscientiousness Index scores in years 1 and 2 of medical school have predictive value for later performance in knowledge, skills and clinical practice. This trait could be used either for selection or for targeted remediation to avoid potential problems in the future.

Situational Judgement Test for Medical Students

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja Graupe ◽  
Martin R. Fischer ◽  
Jan-Willem Strijbos ◽  
Claudia Kiessling
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Situational Judgement Test ◽  
Situational Judgement

Student psychiatry audit and research collaborative (SPARC): A new UK initiative to improve recruitment in psychiatry

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S735-S736
Author(s):  
N. Ellis ◽  
M. Quraishy ◽  
C.M. Grubb ◽  
D. Codling ◽  
J. Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Medical Students ◽  
Junior Doctor ◽  
Student Feedback ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
Level Of Satisfaction ◽  
Competing Interest ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Level

IntroductionThe UK has longstanding problems with psychiatry recruitment. Various initiatives aim to improve psychiatry's image among medical students, but involve research and none are student-led. Providing opportunities to take part in psychiatry research and quality improvement could increase the number of students who choose to enter the speciality.ObjectivesWe have developed the student psychiatry audit and research collaborative (SPARC), a student-led initiative for nationwide collaboration in high-quality research and audits.MethodsOur model is inspired by the success of the UK Student audit and research in surgery (STARSurg). Area teams, located in medical schools, take part in multi-centre projects. The area teams consist of medical students, who have the main responsibility for collecting data; a junior doctor, to supervise the process; and a consultant, with overall responsibility for patient care. The data collected centrally and analysed by a team of medical students and doctors. Student leads from each site are named authors on resulting papers. All other students are acknowledged and are able to present the work.ResultsWe have completed our first audits in Cardiff and London; other sites will return data in 2017. Student feedback indicated a high level of satisfaction with the project and interest in psychiatry as a future career.ConclusionsThis initiative aims to tackle the recruitment problems in psychiatry by giving students a chance to take part in high quality research and audits.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

scholarly journals Evaluating the validity of the selection measures used for the UK’s foundation medical training programme: a national cohort study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e021918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T Smith ◽  
Paul A Tiffin
Keyword(s):  
Medical Training ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Successful Completion ◽  
Educational Achievements ◽  
Postgraduate Medical Training ◽  
Situational Judgement Test ◽  
Foundation Programme ◽  
Selection Measures ◽  
The Uk

ObjectivesCurrently relative performance at medical school (educational performance measure (EPM) decile), additional educational achievements and the score on a situational judgement test (SJT) are used to rank applicants to the UK Foundation Years postgraduate medical training programme. We sought to evaluate whether these three measures were predictive of subsequent successful completion of the programme, and thus were valid selection criteria.MethodsData were obtained from the UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) on 14 131 UK applicants to the foundation programme starting in 2013 and 2014. These data included training outcomes in the form of Annual Reviews of Competency Progression (ARCPs), which indicated whether the programme was successfully completed. The relationship between applicants’ performance on the three selection measures to the odds of successful programme completion were modelled.ResultsOn univariable analyses, all three measures were associated with the odds of successful completion of the programme. Converting the SJT score to deciles to compare the effect sizes suggested that one decile increase in the EPM increased the odds of completing the programme by approximately 15%, whereas the equivalent value was 8% for the SJT scores. On multivariable analyses (with all three measures included in the model), these effects were only independently and statistically significant for EPM decile (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.18, p<0.001) and SJT z-score decile (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09, p=0.02).ConclusionsThe EPM decile and SJT scores may be effective selection measures for the foundation programme. However, educational achievements does not add value to the other two measures when predicting programme completion. Thus, its usefulness in this context is less clear. Moreover, our findings suggest that the weighting for the EPM decile score, relative to SJT performance, should be increased.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document