Search

Situational Judgement Tests (SJTs) are popular to screen for social skills during undergraduate medical admission as they have been shown to predict relevant study outcomes. Two different types of SJTs can be distinguished: Traditional SJTs, which measure general effective behavior, and construct-driven SJTs which are designed to measure specific constructs. To date, there has been no comparison of the predictive validity of these two types of SJTs in medical admission. With the present research, we examine whether the HAM-SJT, a traditional SJT, and the CD-SJT, a construct-driven SJT with an agentic and a communal scale, administered during undergraduate medical admission can predict OSCE (i.e., objective structured clinical examination) performance in a low-stakes (n LS = 159) and a high-stakes (n HS = 160) sample of medical students. Results showed a moderate positive relation between the communal scale of the CD-SJT and performance in OSCE stations with trained patients in the high-stakes sample (r =.20, p =.009). This SJT had also an incremental value in predicting the OSCE performance above and beyond GPA (i.e., grade point average), a science test (i.e., HAM-Nat), and gender (ß = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03; 0.33], p =.020). That is, individuals who chose more communal behavioral responses in the SJT were rated more favorably in interactions with trained patients in the OSCE. A comparable correlation coefficient was observed for the HAM-SJT when controlling for range restriction due to admission (r raw = 0.14 vs. r controlled = 0.20). Our research provides a first indication for the predictive validity of construct-driven SJTs in high-stakes undergraduate medical admission., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Situational Judgement Tests (SJT) are a cost-efficient method for the assessment of personal characteristics (e.g., empathy, professionalism, ethical thinking) in medical school admission. Recently, complex open-ended response format SJTs have become more feasible to conduct. However, research on their applicability to a German context is missing. This pilot study tests the acceptability, reliability, subgroup differences, and validity of an online SJT with open-ended response format developed in Canada ("Casper")., Methods: German medical school applicants and students from Hamburg were invited to take Casper in 2020 and 2021. The test consisted of 12 video- and text-based scenarios, each followed by three open-ended questions. Participants subsequently evaluated their test experience in an online survey. Data on sociodemographic characteristics, other admission criteria (Abitur, TMS, HAM-Nat, HAM-SJT) and study success (OSCE) was available in a central research database (stav)., Results: The full sample consisted of 582 participants. Test-takers' global perception of Casper was positive. Internal consistency was satisfactory in both years ( α =0.73; 0.82) while interrater agreement was moderate (ICC(1,2)=0.54). Participants who were female ( d =0.37) or did not have a migration background ( d =0.40) received higher scores. Casper scores correlated with HAM-SJT ( r =.18) but not with OSCE communication stations performance. The test was also related to Abitur grades ( r =-.15), the TMS ( r =.18), and HAM-Nat logical reasoning scores ( r =.23)., Conclusion: This study provides positive evidence for the acceptability, internal consistency, and convergent validity of Casper. The selection and training of raters as well as the scenario content require further observation and adjustments to a German context to improve interrater reliability and predictive validity., Competing Interests: Alexander MacIntosh is a data scientist at Acuity Insights, the company that develops and distributes Casper. The other authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Knorr et al.)

Background: The qualities of trainees play a key role in entrustment decisions by clinical supervisors for the assignments of professional tasks and levels of supervision. A recent body of qualitative research has shown that in addition to knowledge and skills, a number of personality traits are relevant in the workplace; however, the relevance of these traits has not been investigated empirically. The aim of this study was to analyse the workplace performance of final-year medical students using an Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) framework in relation to their personality traits., Methods: Medical students at the end of their final clerkship year were invited to participate in an online survey-based, cross-sectional field study. In the survey, the workplace performance was captured using a framework consisting of levels of experienced supervision and a defined set of 12 end-of-undergraduate medical training EPAs. The Big Five personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness) of the participating medical students were measured using the Big Five Inventory-SOEP (BFI-S), which consists of 15 items that are rated on a seven-point Likert scale. The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics., Results: The study included 880 final-year medical students (mean age: 27.2 years, SD = 3.0; 65% female). The levels of supervision under which the final-year clerkship students carried out the EPAs varied considerably. Significant correlations were found between the levels of experienced supervision and all Big Five dimensions The correlations with the dimensions of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness were positive, and that for the neuroticism dimension was negative (range r = 0.17 to r = - 0.23). Multiple regression analyses showed that the combination of the Big Five personality traits accounted for 0.8-7.5% of the variance in supervision levels on individual EPAs., Conclusions: Using the BFI-S, we found that the levels of supervision on a set of end-of-undergraduate medical training EPAs were related to the personality traits of final-year medical students. The results of this study confirm the existing body of research on the role of conscientiousness and extraversion in entrustment decision-making and, in particular, add the personality trait of neuroticism as a new and relevant trainee quality to be considered., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

To what extent do individuals differ in understanding how others see them and who is particularly good at it? Answering these questions about the "good metaperceiver" is relevant given the beneficial outcomes of meta-accuracy. However, there likely is more than one type of the good metaperceiver: One who knows the specific impressions they make more than others do ( dyadic meta-accuracy ) and one who knows their reputation more than others do (generalized meta-accuracy ). To identify and understand these good metaperceivers, we introduce the social meta-accuracy model (SMAM) as a statistical and conceptual framework and apply the SMAM to four samples of first impression interactions. As part of our demonstration, we also investigated the routes to and the correlates of both types of good metaperceivers. Results from SMAM show that, overall, people were able to detect the unique and general first impressions they made, but there was little evidence for individual differences in dyadic meta-accuracy in a first impression. In contrast, there were substantial individual differences in generalized meta-accuracy, and this ability was largely explained by being transparent (i.e., good metaperceivers were seen as they saw themselves). We also observed some evidence that good generalized metaperceivers in a first impression tend to be extraverted and popular. This work demonstrated that the SMAM is a useful tool for identifying and understanding both types of good metaperceivers and paves the way for future work on individual differences in meta-accuracy in other contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

A large body of research suggests that extraversion is positively related to well-being. However, it is unclear whether this association can be explained by social participation (i.e., more extraverted individuals engage in social interactions more frequently) or social reactivity (i.e., more extraverted individuals profit more from social interactions) processes. Here, we examined the role of social interactions for the extraversion-well-being relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented time of reduced social contact. We analyzed data from an international, longitudinal study (Study 1: 10,523 assessments provided by 4,622 participants) and two experience sampling studies (Study 2: 29,536 assessments provided by 293 participants; Study 3: 61,492 assessments provided by 1,381 participants). Preregistered multilevel structural equation models revealed that extraversion was robustly related to well-being, even when social restrictions were in place. Across data sets, we found some support for the social participation hypothesis (i.e., the relationship between extraversion and well-being is mediated by social interactions), but the social reactivity hypothesis (i.e., extraversion moderates the relationship between social interactions and well-being) was not consistently supported. Strikingly, however, exploratory analyses showed that the social reactivity hypothesis was supported for specific facets of extraversion (i.e., sociability) and well-being (i.e., activated positive affect). Moreover, changes in social interaction patterns during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., decreases in face-to-face interactions and interactions with friends) were unrelated to extraversion, and more extraverted individuals did not suffer more from these changes. Taken together, these findings underline the robustness of the effect of extraversion on well-being during a societal crisis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Contingencies between situational variables and psychological states have been proposed as key individual difference variables by many theoretical approaches to personality. Despite their relevance, the basic properties, nomological correlates, and factor structure of individual differences in contingencies have not been examined so far. We address these fundamental questions in five studies with overall N = 952 participants and N = 32,052 unique assessments. Individual differences in situation characteristic-state contingencies (SCSCs) between DIAMONDS situation characteristics and Big Five personality states were examined in everyday life. SCSCs showed substantial variation across participants, and individual differences in them were moderately reliable (average meta-analytic reliability = .47) and short-term stable (average meta-analytic latent stability = .43). They were weakly and inconsistently related to average personality states, self-reported personality traits, subjective happiness, and sociodemographic variables across studies. However, there were meaningful intercorrelations among SCSCs that could be described by four factors: contingencies involving (1) positive states and situational problems, (2) positive states and situational rewards, (3) thinking/work and requirements of thinking/work, and (4) neurotic states. Overall, our findings support the notion of SCSCs as potentially important individual difference variables, and we sketch future lines of research on contingencies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

States refer to our momentary thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Average states (aggregates across multiple time points) are discussed as a more accurate and objective measure of personality compared to global self-reports since they do not only rely on people's general beliefs about themselves. Specifically, Finnigan and Vazire (2018) argued that, if average states better capture what a person is actually like, this should be reflected in their unique association with informant-reports of personality, and tested this idea based on two experience-sampling studies. Their results showed, however, that average self-reported states did not predict global informant-reported personality above and beyond global self-reports. In this research, we aimed at replicating and extending these results. We used data of five studies (total N = 806) that involved global self- and informant-reports and employed a variety of different experience-sampling methods (time-based with different sampling schedules, event-based). Across all studies, the original results (i.e., no incremental effects of average self-reported states) were replicated. Furthermore, as an extension to the original study, we found that average other-reported states (provided by peers, results based on one study) did indeed predict global informant-reports above and beyond global self-reports. These findings highlight the importance of differentiating between method effects (global reports vs. average states) from source of information effects (self vs. other). We discuss these results, focusing on the suitability of using informant-reports as a criterion variable and conceptual differences between assessment methods. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Social skills are of key importance in everyday and work life. However, the way in which they are typically assessed via self-report questionnaires has one potential downside; self-reports assess individuals' global self-concepts, which do not necessarily reflect individuals' actual social behaviors. In this research, we aimed to investigate how self-concepts assessed via questionnaires relate to skill expression assessed via behavioral observations after short interpersonal simulations. For this, we used an alternative behavior-based skill assessment approach designed to capture expressions of predefined social skills. Self- and observer ratings were collected to assess three different social skills: agency (i.e., getting ahead in social situations), communion (i.e., getting along in social situations), and interpersonal resilience (i.e., staying calm in social situations). We explored how these skills were related to self-concepts by differentiating between a classic personality measure (i.e., Big Five Inventory 2; BFI-2) and a novel skill questionnaire (i.e., Behavioral, Emotional, and Social Skills Inventory; BESSI). The results ( N = 137) showed that both personality and skill self-concepts predicted self-rated skill expression, with the BESSI showing incremental validity. For both personality and skills self-concepts, the relationships with observer-rated skill expression were significant for agency but not for communion or interpersonal resilience. We discuss these results and highlight the theoretical and practical importance of differentiating between skill self-concepts and actual skill expression.

Background: Social skills are important for future physicians and are therefore increasingly considered in selection processes. One economic assessment method from which different social skills can be inferred are Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) in which applicants are asked to rate behavioral responses in context-relevant situations. However, traditional SJTs have so far failed to distinctively measure specified constructs. To address this shortcoming in the medical admission context, we applied a construct-driven approach of SJT development in which test development was deductively guided by agency and communion as target constructs., Method: The final version of the construct-driven SJT includes 15 items per construct with three behavioral responses. Medical school applicants (N = 1527) completed the construct-driven SJT, a traditional SJT, and an aptitude test under high-stakes condition as part of their application. A subsample (N = 575) participated in a subsequent voluntary online study with self-report measures of personality and past behavior., Results: The proposed two-factor structure and internal consistency of the construct-driven SJT was confirmed. Communal SJT scores were positively associated with self-reported communal personality and communal behavior, yet effects were smaller than expected. Findings for agentic SJT scores were mixed with positive small associations to self-reported agentic personality scores and agentic behavior but unexpected negative relations to communal self-reported measures., Conclusions: Results suggest that construct-driven SJTs might overcome validity limitations of traditional SJTs, although their implementation is challenging. Despite first indicators of validity, future research needs to address practical points of application in high-stakes settings, inclusion of other constructs, and especially prediction of actual behavior before the application of construct-driven SJTs for selection purposes in medical admission can be recommended., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: One popular procedure in the medical student selection process are multiple mini-interviews (MMIs), which are designed to assess social skills (e.g., empathy) by means of brief interview and role-play stations. However, it remains unclear whether MMIs reliably measure desired social skills or rather general performance differences that do not depend on specific social skills. Here, we provide a detailed investigation into the construct validity of MMIs, including the identification and quantification of performance facets (social skill-specific performance, station-specific performance, general performance) and their relations with other selection measures. Methods: We used data from three MMI samples ( N  = 376 applicants, 144 raters) that included six interview and role-play stations and multiple assessed social skills. Results: Bayesian generalizability analyses show that, the largest amount of reliable MMI variance was accounted for by station-specific and general performance differences between applicants. Furthermore, there were low or no correlations with other selection measures. Discussion: Our findings suggest that MMI ratings are less social skill-specific than originally conceptualized and are due more to general performance differences (across and within-stations). Future research should focus on the development of skill-specific MMI stations and on behavioral analyses on the extents to which performance differences are based on desirable skills versus undesired aspects.

Our personalities (who we are) influence our social relationships (how we relate to people around us), and our social relationships influence our personalities. However, little is known about the specific processes underlying the complex interplay of personality and social relationships. According to the PERSOC framework, the identification of underlying social interaction processes promotes the understanding of how personality and social relationships are expressed, develop, and influence each other over time. The aim of the present paper is twofold: First, we outline and discuss four methodological challenges that arise when trying to empirically realize a process approach to the personality-relationship interplay. Second, we describe two data sets that are designed to meet these challenges and that are open for collaborative investigations: a laboratory-based process approach (Personality Interaction Laboratory Study; PILS) and a field-based process approach (CONNECT). We provide detailed information on the samples (two student samples; PILS: N = 311; CONNECT: N = 131), procedures (longitudinal and multimethodological), and measures (personality and social relationships, appearance and behavior, interpersonal perceptions), for which we present descriptive information, reliabilities, and intercorrelations. We summarize how these studies' designs targeted the introduced methodological challenges, discuss the advantages and limitations of laboratory- and field-based process approaches, and call for their combination. We close by outlining an open research policy, aimed at accelerated collaborative efforts to further open the process black box, ultimately leading to a better understanding of the expression, development, and complex interplay of personality and social relationships., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.