以证据为基础评估 SJT 在选拔中的作用。

IF 3.6 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Clinical Medicine Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.7861/clinmed.2023-0295
Gurvinder Sahota, John McLachlan, Fiona Patterson, Paul Tiffin
{"title":"以证据为基础评估 SJT 在选拔中的作用。","authors":"Gurvinder Sahota, John McLachlan, Fiona Patterson, Paul Tiffin","doi":"10.7861/clinmed.2023-0295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A recent opinion article in Clinical Medicine promoted a new preference-based algorithm to allocate training places for the UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO). This replaced the previous process, which ranked candidates based on medical school academic achievement (the educational performance measure; EPM) and the score on a situational judgement test (SJT). Although not without risks, we believe that the new system has positive potential. In presenting their case, Sam et al summarised evidence relating to the UKFPO in an unbalanced way, leading to what we believe are erroneous inferences, particularly with regard to differential attainment. Here, we provide an example of how the general evidence base and conceptual understanding of the validity of SJTs for medical selection is poorly understood. We highlight important research findings that were not cited by Sam et al and provide what we believe is a more balanced and accurate interpretation of the evidence base relating the UKFPO SJT, and SJTs used in medical selection in general. We do this with particular reference to the validity of such tools in this context, as well as their potential impact on under-represented groups in medicine, compared with other selection assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":10492,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine","volume":"23 6","pages":"641-642"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based appraisal of the role of SJTs in selection.\",\"authors\":\"Gurvinder Sahota, John McLachlan, Fiona Patterson, Paul Tiffin\",\"doi\":\"10.7861/clinmed.2023-0295\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A recent opinion article in Clinical Medicine promoted a new preference-based algorithm to allocate training places for the UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO). This replaced the previous process, which ranked candidates based on medical school academic achievement (the educational performance measure; EPM) and the score on a situational judgement test (SJT). Although not without risks, we believe that the new system has positive potential. In presenting their case, Sam et al summarised evidence relating to the UKFPO in an unbalanced way, leading to what we believe are erroneous inferences, particularly with regard to differential attainment. Here, we provide an example of how the general evidence base and conceptual understanding of the validity of SJTs for medical selection is poorly understood. We highlight important research findings that were not cited by Sam et al and provide what we believe is a more balanced and accurate interpretation of the evidence base relating the UKFPO SJT, and SJTs used in medical selection in general. We do this with particular reference to the validity of such tools in this context, as well as their potential impact on under-represented groups in medicine, compared with other selection assessments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Medicine\",\"volume\":\"23 6\",\"pages\":\"641-642\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2023-0295\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2023-0295","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,《临床医学》(Clinical Medicine)杂志发表了一篇评论文章,推广了一种基于偏好的新算法,用于分配英国大学预科项目办公室(UKFPO)的培训名额。该算法取代了之前根据医学院学业成绩(教育成绩衡量标准;EPM)和情境判断测试(SJT)得分对候选人进行排名的程序。我们认为,尽管新系统并非没有风险,但它具有积极的潜力。Sam 等人在介绍他们的案例时,以一种不平衡的方式总结了与 UKFPO 有关的证据,导致了我们认为是错误的推论,尤其是关于不同成绩的推论。在此,我们举例说明了对医学选拔中SJT有效性的一般证据基础和概念理解是如何欠缺的。我们强调了萨姆等人没有引用的重要研究成果,并对与UKFPO SJT和一般医学选拔中使用的SJT相关的证据基础进行了我们认为更加平衡和准确的解释。在此过程中,我们特别提到了此类工具在此背景下的有效性,以及与其他遴选评估相比,此类工具对医学领域代表性不足群体的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evidence-based appraisal of the role of SJTs in selection.

A recent opinion article in Clinical Medicine promoted a new preference-based algorithm to allocate training places for the UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO). This replaced the previous process, which ranked candidates based on medical school academic achievement (the educational performance measure; EPM) and the score on a situational judgement test (SJT). Although not without risks, we believe that the new system has positive potential. In presenting their case, Sam et al summarised evidence relating to the UKFPO in an unbalanced way, leading to what we believe are erroneous inferences, particularly with regard to differential attainment. Here, we provide an example of how the general evidence base and conceptual understanding of the validity of SJTs for medical selection is poorly understood. We highlight important research findings that were not cited by Sam et al and provide what we believe is a more balanced and accurate interpretation of the evidence base relating the UKFPO SJT, and SJTs used in medical selection in general. We do this with particular reference to the validity of such tools in this context, as well as their potential impact on under-represented groups in medicine, compared with other selection assessments.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Medicine
Clinical Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Medicine is aimed at practising physicians in the UK and overseas and has relevance to all those managing or working within the healthcare sector. Available in print and online, the journal seeks to encourage high standards of medical care by promoting good clinical practice through original research, review and comment. The journal also includes a dedicated continuing medical education (CME) section in each issue. This presents the latest advances in a chosen specialty, with self-assessment questions at the end of each topic enabling CPD accreditation to be acquired. ISSN: 1470-2118 E-ISSN: 1473-4893 Frequency: 6 issues per year
期刊最新文献
Impact on clinical outcomes, surgical interventions, anaesthetic decisions and complication rates following implementation of the NICE OSA guidelines during preoperative screening. Thromboelastography for Rapid Diagnosis of Heparin-Like Anticoagulant Release During Anaphylaxis-Induced Coagulopathy in Systemic Mastocytosis: A Case Report. The feasibility of a novel national Quality Improvement programme for Tobacco Dependency Treatment Pathways in acute UK hospitals. Key concepts in diagnosing infection - when to treat and when not to. Diabetic Ketoacidosis and Hyperglycemic Hyperosmolar Syndrome in Patients with Cancer: A Multicenter Study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1