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

被引:9
|
作者
Wolcott, Michael D. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lobczowski, Nikki G. [3 ,4 ]
Zeeman, Jacqueline M. [1 ]
McLaughlin, Jacqueline E. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ N Carolina, Eshelman Sch Pharm, 321 Beard Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
[2] Univ N Carolina, Adams Sch Dent, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
[3] Univ N Carolina, Sch Educ, Chapel Hill, NC 27515 USA
[4] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
关键词
Cognitive interview; Empathy; Qualitative methodology; Response process; Situational judgment test; Think-aloud protocol; Validity; MEDICAL-EDUCATION; KNOWLEDGE TESTS; PERFORMANCE; EMPATHY; STUDENTS; ABILITY;
D O I
10.1186/s12909-020-02410-z
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 8 条
  • [1] Situational judgment test validity: an exploratory model of the participant response process using cognitive and think-aloud interviews
    Michael D. Wolcott
    Nikki G. Lobczowski
    Jacqueline M. Zeeman
    Jacqueline E. McLaughlin
    BMC Medical Education, 20
  • [2] Using Think-Aloud Interviews and Cognitive Labs in Educational Research
    Kinskey, Melanie
    QUALITATIVE REPORT, 2018, 23 (03) : 730 - 732
  • [3] Using cognitive interviews and think-aloud protocols to understand thought processes
    Wolcott, Michael D.
    Lobczowski, Nikki G.
    CURRENTS IN PHARMACY TEACHING AND LEARNING, 2021, 13 (02) : 181 - 188
  • [4] Developing an Engineering Design Process Assessment Using Think-Aloud Interviews
    Alemdar, Meltem
    Lingle, Jeremy A.
    Wind, Stefanie A.
    Moore, Roxanne A.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION, 2017, 33 (01) : 441 - 452
  • [5] Examining response process validity of script concordance testing: a think-aloud approach
    Wan, Siu Hong
    Tor, Elina
    Hudson, Judith N.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2020, 11 : 127 - 135
  • [6] Using think-aloud interviews to characterize model-based reasoning in electronics for a laboratory course assessment
    Rios, Laura
    Pollard, Benjamin
    Dounas-Frazer, Dimitri R.
    Lewandowski, H. J.
    PHYSICAL REVIEW PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH, 2019, 15 (01):
  • [7] The Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool for cancer patients: A validation study using a Delphi process and patient think-aloud interviews
    Hagen, Neil A.
    Stiles, Carla
    Nekolaichuk, Cheryl
    Biondo, Patricia
    Carlson, Linda E.
    Fisher, Kim
    Fainsinger, Robin
    JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2008, 35 (02) : 136 - 152
  • [8] Response process validity of three patient reported outcome measures for people requiring kidney care: a think-aloud study using the EQ-5D-5L, ICECAP-A and ICECAP-O
    Mitchell, Paul Mark
    Caskey, Fergus John
    Scott, Jemima
    Sanghera, Sabina
    Coast, Joanna
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (05):