• Gurvinder Sahota, John McLachlan, Fiona Patterson, and Paul Tiffin.
• Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK Gurvinder.sahota@nottingham.ac.uk.
• Clin Med (Lond). 2023 Dec 8; 23 (6): 641642641-642.

AbstractA recent opinion article in Clinical Medicine promoted a new preference-based algorithm to allocate training places for the UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO). This replaced the previous process, which ranked candidates based on medical school academic achievement (the educational performance measure; EPM) and the score on a situational judgement test (SJT). Although not without risks, we believe that the new system has positive potential. In presenting their case, Sam et al summarised evidence relating to the UKFPO in an unbalanced way, leading to what we believe are erroneous inferences, particularly with regard to differential attainment. Here, we provide an example of how the general evidence base and conceptual understanding of the validity of SJTs for medical selection is poorly understood. We highlight important research findings that were not cited by Sam et al and provide what we believe is a more balanced and accurate interpretation of the evidence base relating the UKFPO SJT, and SJTs used in medical selection in general. We do this with particular reference to the validity of such tools in this context, as well as their potential impact on under-represented groups in medicine, compared with other selection assessments.© Royal College of Physicians 2023. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…