↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the complementary roles of an SJT and academic assessment for entry into clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating the complementary roles of an SJT and academic assessment for entry into clinical practice
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10459-017-9755-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fran Cousans, Fiona Patterson, Helena Edwards, Kim Walker, John C. McLachlan, David Good

Abstract

Although there is extensive evidence confirming the predictive validity of situational judgement tests (SJTs) in medical education, there remains a shortage of evidence for their predictive validity for performance of postgraduate trainees in their first role in clinical practice. Moreover, to date few researchers have empirically examined the complementary roles of academic and non-academic selection methods in predicting in-role performance. This is an important area of enquiry as despite it being common practice to use both types of methods within a selection system, there is currently no evidence that this approach translates into increased predictive validity of the selection system as a whole, over that achieved by the use of a single selection method. In this preliminary study, the majority of the range of scores achieved by successful applicants to the UK Foundation Programme provided a unique opportunity to address both of these areas of enquiry. Sampling targeted high (>80th percentile) and low (<20th percentile) scorers on the SJT. Supervisors rated 391 trainees' in-role performance, and incidence of remedial action was collected. SJT and academic performance scores correlated with supervisor ratings (r = .31 and .28, respectively). The relationship was stronger between the SJT and in-role performance for the low scoring group (r = .33, high scoring group r = .11), and between academic performance and in-role performance for the high scoring group (r = .29, low scoring group r = .11). Trainees with low SJT scores were almost five times more likely to receive remedial action. Results indicate that an SJT for entry into trainee physicians' first role in clinical practice has good predictive validity of supervisor-rated performance and incidence of remedial action. In addition, an SJT and a measure of academic performance appeared to be complementary to each other. These initial findings suggest that SJTs may be more predictive at the lower end of a scoring distribution, and academic attainment more predictive at the higher end.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Professor 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 25 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 34%
Psychology 6 9%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 25 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,640,660
of 25,349,035 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#92
of 938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,399
of 432,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,349,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 432,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.