Cargando…

Situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews

BACKGROUND: Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are used in health sciences education to measure examinee knowledge using case-based scenarios. Despite their popularity, there is a significant gap in the validity research on the response process that demonstrates how SJTs measure their intended constr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wolcott, Michael D., Lobczowski, Nikki G., Zeeman, Jacqueline M., McLaughlin, Jacqueline E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7734708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33317517
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02410-z
_version_ 1783622520787697664
author Wolcott, Michael D.
Lobczowski, Nikki G.
Zeeman, Jacqueline M.
McLaughlin, Jacqueline E.
author_facet Wolcott, Michael D.
Lobczowski, Nikki G.
Zeeman, Jacqueline M.
McLaughlin, Jacqueline E.
author_sort Wolcott, Michael D.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are used in health sciences education to measure examinee knowledge using case-based scenarios. Despite their popularity, there is a significant gap in the validity research on the response process that demonstrates how SJTs measure their intended constructs. A model of SJT response processes has been proposed in the literature by Robert Ployhart; however, few studies have explored and expanded the factors. The purpose of this study was to describe the factors involved in cognitive processes that examinees use as they respond to SJT items in a health professions education context. METHODS: Thirty participants—15 student pharmacists and 15 practicing pharmacists—completed a 12-item SJT designed to measure empathy. Each participant engaged in a think-aloud interview while completing the SJT, followed by a cognitive interview probing their decision-making processes. Interviews were transcribed and independently coded by three researchers to identify salient factors that contributed to response processes. RESULTS: The findings suggest SJT response processes include all four stages (comprehension, retrieval, judgment, and response selection) as initially proposed by Ployhart. The study showed factors from other published research were present, including job-specific knowledge and experiences, emotional intelligence, and test-taking. The study also identified new factors not yet described, including identifying a task objective in the scenario, assumptions about the scenario, perceptions about the scenario, and the setting of the item. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides additional SJT validity evidence by exploring participants’ response processes through cognitive and think-aloud interviews. It also confirmed the four-stage model previously described by Ployhart and identified new factors that may influence SJT response processes. This study contributes to the literature with an expanded SJT response process model in a health professions education context and offers an approach to evaluate SJT response processes in the future. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-020-02410-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7734708
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77347082020-12-15 Situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews Wolcott, Michael D. Lobczowski, Nikki G. Zeeman, Jacqueline M. McLaughlin, Jacqueline E. BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are used in health sciences education to measure examinee knowledge using case-based scenarios. Despite their popularity, there is a significant gap in the validity research on the response process that demonstrates how SJTs measure their intended constructs. A model of SJT response processes has been proposed in the literature by Robert Ployhart; however, few studies have explored and expanded the factors. The purpose of this study was to describe the factors involved in cognitive processes that examinees use as they respond to SJT items in a health professions education context. METHODS: Thirty participants—15 student pharmacists and 15 practicing pharmacists—completed a 12-item SJT designed to measure empathy. Each participant engaged in a think-aloud interview while completing the SJT, followed by a cognitive interview probing their decision-making processes. Interviews were transcribed and independently coded by three researchers to identify salient factors that contributed to response processes. RESULTS: The findings suggest SJT response processes include all four stages (comprehension, retrieval, judgment, and response selection) as initially proposed by Ployhart. The study showed factors from other published research were present, including job-specific knowledge and experiences, emotional intelligence, and test-taking. The study also identified new factors not yet described, including identifying a task objective in the scenario, assumptions about the scenario, perceptions about the scenario, and the setting of the item. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides additional SJT validity evidence by exploring participants’ response processes through cognitive and think-aloud interviews. It also confirmed the four-stage model previously described by Ployhart and identified new factors that may influence SJT response processes. This study contributes to the literature with an expanded SJT response process model in a health professions education context and offers an approach to evaluate SJT response processes in the future. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-020-02410-z. BioMed Central 2020-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7734708/ /pubmed/33317517 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02410-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wolcott, Michael D.
Lobczowski, Nikki G.
Zeeman, Jacqueline M.
McLaughlin, Jacqueline E.
Situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews
title Situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews
title_full Situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews
title_fullStr Situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews
title_full_unstemmed Situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews
title_short Situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews
title_sort situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7734708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33317517
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02410-z
work_keys_str_mv AT wolcottmichaeld situationaljudgmenttestvalidityanexploratorymodeloftheparticipantresponseprocessusingcognitiveandthinkaloudinterviews
AT lobczowskinikkig situationaljudgmenttestvalidityanexploratorymodeloftheparticipantresponseprocessusingcognitiveandthinkaloudinterviews
AT zeemanjacquelinem situationaljudgmenttestvalidityanexploratorymodeloftheparticipantresponseprocessusingcognitiveandthinkaloudinterviews
AT mclaughlinjacquelinee situationaljudgmenttestvalidityanexploratorymodeloftheparticipantresponseprocessusingcognitiveandthinkaloudinterviews