Scribd
Upload
199 views3 pages

Understanding Your Situational Judgement Test (SJT) Score: SJT As A Measure of Meeting The Person Specification

The SJT assesses a candidate's judgement and ability to handle situations that arise as a foundation doctor. It focuses on professionalism, coping with pressure, communication, patient focus, and teamwork. Candidates are scored based on how closely their responses match expert recommendations. Scores are reported on a scale of 0 to 50 based on the mean and standard deviation of the EPM scores to ensure equal weighting. For FP 2020, most candidates scored between 35.01-40.00, with a mean of 39.85 and standard deviation of 4.16.

Uploaded by

Paola Abreu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
199 views3 pages

Understanding Your Situational Judgement Test (SJT) Score: SJT As A Measure of Meeting The Person Specification

The SJT assesses a candidate's judgement and ability to handle situations that arise as a foundation doctor. It focuses on professionalism, coping with pressure, communication, patient focus, and teamwork. Candidates are scored based on how closely their responses match expert recommendations. Scores are reported on a scale of 0 to 50 based on the mean and standard deviation of the EPM scores to ensure equal weighting. For FP 2020, most candidates scored between 35.01-40.00, with a mean of 39.85 and standard deviation of 4.16.

Uploaded by

Paola Abreu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Understanding your Situational Judgement Test (SJT) score

SJT as a measure of meeting the person specification


The SJT is designed to assess your approach to work as a Foundation doctor as defined by the
FP 2020 person specification.

The SJT measures your understanding of situations that arise for a foundation doctor, your
judgement in differentiating between appropriate and inappropriate responses, and your
ability to recognise the most important concerns in any situation. It focuses on appropriate
behaviour with respect to interacting with patients and colleagues and in managing your own
workload. The test covers five core domains:
• commitment to professionalism
• coping with pressure
• effective communication
• patient focus
• working effectively as part of a team

How the papers are marked


There are 70 items in a test paper, 10 of which are trial items which are being piloted for future
use. All of the 60 live items have been reviewed by experts and piloted to ensure that they are
appropriate for use. Around two thirds of the items are ranking items and one third of the
items are multiple choice. There is no negative marking. Please see the scoring grid on the
UKFPO’s FAQs for more information.

• Ranking items: The items in Part One of the paper require you to rank a series of
options in response to a given situation. Your answers are marked by comparing your
response to the model response determined by an expert panel. The closer your
response is to the model response, the more marks you are awarded. A perfect match
receives 20 marks. If you tie two options in your answer you will receive no credit for
either option. This marking convention means that even if you were to answer a
ranking item completely out of order, you would score a minimum of 8 marks.

• Multiple choice items: The items in Part Two of the paper require you to select three
from eight possible responses to a given situation. As with ranking items, your answers
are marked by comparing your response to the model response determined by an
expert panel. These items are worth a maximum of 12 marks. Each of the three
individual responses is worth 4 marks. If you select more than three options, you will
receive no credit for the question.
Test equating
There were three test papers used for selection to FP 2020. The papers were balanced for
content and difficulty; items were selected taking into account discrimination1 and facility2 to
ensure that each version of the test was as close to equal quality and equal difficulty as
possible. The three test papers covered an equal number of items assessing a similar number
of each of the core domains, with the papers also designed to include a similar number of
items according to a theme (i.e. colleague-related or patient-related). It is not, however,
possible to give an SJT ‘mark’ by domain as one item could assess several different domains,
and other domains are integral to all items, for example decision making.

Statistical procedures were used to make minor adjustments to marks on the different papers
to ensure that all scores are equivalent – this is known as test equating3.

How SJT points are determined


SJT scores are reported on a 0 to 50 scale with the lowest possible score receiving 0.00 points
and the highest possible score receiving 50.00 points. The distribution of the scale is set to
match the mean and distribution of the EPM scores. This ensures that when the SJT and EPM
scores are combined they each have an equal weighting. Table 1 below shows how SJT scores
were distributed in selection to FP 2020.

Table 1: Distribution of Scaled SJT scores for FP 2020


SJT points Percentage of applicants
0.00–10.00 0.1%
10.01–20.00 0.2%
20.01–30.00 2.2%
30.01–35.00 10.2%
35.01–40.00 39.0%
40.01–45.00 43.5%
45.01–50.00 4.8%

1
By examining the correlation between item score and overall test score, not including the item itself,
this shows how well an item differentiates between high and low scorers.
2
The facility value is the mean score achieved for the item. If the facility value is very low, then the item
may be too difficult and may not yield useful information. If the facility value is very high, then the item
may be too easy and may not provide useful information or discriminate between applicants.
3
Statistical process of determining comparable scores on different forms of an assessment which takes
into account the relative difficulty of items.
Figure 1: Distribution of Scaled SJT Scores for FP 2020

Mean: 39.85
Median: 40.35
Standard Deviation: 4.16

Standard Deviation (SD) provides an indication of the spread of scores. In a normal distribution,
the majority (68%) of applicants would score within 1 SD from the mean; a further 27% would
score 1–2 SDs away from the mean; 4% would score 2–3 SDs away from the mean; less than
1% would score more than 3 SDs from the mean. Figure 1 shows that the distribution of SJT
scores was a near normal distribution with a slight negative skew, i.e. a longer tail of low-
scoring applicants.

More information
The SJT has been developed over a number of years, with extensive piloting, clinician and
psychometric review, to ensure that the test is fair, reliable and robust. For more information
about the Department of Health funded Improving Selection to the Foundation Programme
(ISFP) Project, the results and analysis of the pilot SJTs and further reading about the SJT, please
visit www.isfp.org.uk.

You might also like