Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026
Use of situational judgment test for evaluating nonacademic attributes in ophthalmology fellowship selection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Prakasam Ruby Kala, Tripathi Anjali, Kapoor Aditya, Bejjanki Kavya M, Pathengay Avinash, Snigdha Snigdha
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In medical fellowship selection, evaluating both academic and nonacademic attributes is essential for clinical success. This study integrates cognitive assessments with construct-driven situational judgment tests (SJTs) to evaluate nonacademic traits, aiming to identify well-rounded candidates during the ophthalmology fellowship selection process.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 68 candidates who appeared for the interview in 2024. Academic attributes were assessed through structured interviews in which candidates prepared and delivered PowerPoint presentations on ophthalmology topics. These were evaluated using a rubric aligned with Bloom's six cognitive levels: recall, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Nonacademic attributes were assessed using verbal SJTs based on the 5Cs framework: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, curiosity, and creativity.
RESULTS: The median difference between presentation scores (61.1%, interquartile range (IQR) = 35) and SJT scores (85.4%, IQR = 25) was statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.001), with candidates performing better in the SJT. Further, the rank-based correlation between presentation and SJT scores was not statistically significant (Spearman correlation, P = 0.545), indicating that candidates who scored high on the Bloom-based presentation did not consistently score high or low on the SJT, suggesting that the two assessments measure distinct attributes.
CONCLUSION: Academic and nonacademic attributes represent distinct skill sets. Therefore, a combined evaluation that incorporates both domains may more effectively identify well-rounded candidates for ophthalmology fellowships. This dual-assessment approach can be implemented through a virtual platform, enabling a more holistic and equitable evaluation of applicants for entry-level fellowship selection.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 68 candidates who appeared for the interview in 2024. Academic attributes were assessed through structured interviews in which candidates prepared and delivered PowerPoint presentations on ophthalmology topics. These were evaluated using a rubric aligned with Bloom's six cognitive levels: recall, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. Nonacademic attributes were assessed using verbal SJTs based on the 5Cs framework: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, curiosity, and creativity.
RESULTS: The median difference between presentation scores (61.1%, interquartile range (IQR) = 35) and SJT scores (85.4%, IQR = 25) was statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P < 0.001), with candidates performing better in the SJT. Further, the rank-based correlation between presentation and SJT scores was not statistically significant (Spearman correlation, P = 0.545), indicating that candidates who scored high on the Bloom-based presentation did not consistently score high or low on the SJT, suggesting that the two assessments measure distinct attributes.
CONCLUSION: Academic and nonacademic attributes represent distinct skill sets. Therefore, a combined evaluation that incorporates both domains may more effectively identify well-rounded candidates for ophthalmology fellowships. This dual-assessment approach can be implemented through a virtual platform, enabling a more holistic and equitable evaluation of applicants for entry-level fellowship selection.