Validity of constructed-response situational judgment tests in training programs for the health professions: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

Abstract

BackgroundSituational judgments tests have been increasingly used to help training programs for the health professions incorporate professionalism attributes into their admissions process. While such tests have strong psychometric properties for testing professional attributes and are feasible to implement in high-volume, high-stakes selection, little is known about constructed-response situational judgment tests and their validity.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of primary published or unpublished studies reporting on the association between scores on constructed-response situational judgment tests and scores on other tests that measure personal, interpersonal, or professional attributes in training programs for the health professions. In addition to searching electronic databases, we will contact academics and researchers and undertake backward and forward searching. Two reviewers will independently screen the papers and decide on their inclusion, first based on the titles and abstracts of all citations, and then according to the full texts. Data extraction will be done independently by two reviewers using a data extraction form to chart study details and key findings. Studies will be assessed for the risk of bias and quality by two reviewers using the "Quality In Prognosis Studies" tool. To synthesize evidence, we will test the statistical heterogeneity and conduct a psychometric meta-analysis using a random-effects model. If adequate data are available, we will explore whether the meta-analytic correlation varies across different subgroups (e.g., race, gender).DiscussionThe findings of this study will inform best practices for admission and selection of applicants for training programs for the health professions and encourage further research on constructed-response situational judgment tests, in particular their validity.Trial registrationThe protocol for this systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO [CRD42022314561]. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022314561.