Assessing professionalism in mental health clinicians - development and validation of a situational judgement test

Q: What was the purpose of developing the situational judgement test (SJT)?

To evaluate applicants’ procedural knowledge of professionalism for clinical roles in mental health services.

Q: How were the SJT items created?

Through interviews and focus groups with professionals, patients, and carers linked to a National Health Service mental health trust in England.

Q: What outcome measures were used to validate the SJT?

Primary outcomes were supervisor ratings of professionalism and effectiveness; personality assessment scores were reported as a secondary outcome.

Sep 2, 2026

Uploaded by Jordan Avery

Situational judgement test scores can predict workplace performance and are used to evaluate non-academic attributes for healthcare selection, yet a validated tool for mental health services was lacking. The study developed and validated an SJT to assess applicants’ procedural knowledge of professionalism for clinical roles in mental health services. Item content was created via interviews and focus groups with 56 stakeholders and administered to registered nurses and allied health professionals, with supervisor professionalism and effectiveness ratings as primary outcomes, and personality assessment as a secondary outcome.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages8

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

Background

Aims

Method

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

| | BJPsych Open (2023)
9, e213, 1–8 . doi: 10 . 1192/bjo.2023.582 | | --- | --- | |

Assessing professionalism in mental health clinicians: development and validation of a situational judgement test
Lauren M. E. Aylott, Gabrielle M. Finn and Paul A. Tiffin | | | --- | --- | | Background
Situational judgement test (SJT) scores have been observed to predict actual workplace performance. They are commonly used to assess non-academic attributes as part of selection into many healthcare roles. However, no validated SJT yet exists for recruiting into mental health services.
Aims
To develop and validate an SJT that can evaluate procedural knowledge of professionalism in applicants to clinical roles in mental health services.
Method
SJT item content was generated through interviews and focus groups with 56 professionals, patients and carers related to a large National Health Service mental health trust in England. These subject matter experts informed the content of the final items for the SJT. The SJT was completed by 73 registered nursesand 36 allied health professionals (AHPs) . The primary outcome measure was supervisor ratings of professionalism and effectiveness on a relative percentile rating scale and was present for 69 of the participating nurses and AHPs. Personality assessment scores were reported as a secondary outcome. | Results
SJT scores statistically significantly predicted ratings of professionalism (β = 0 .31, P = 0 .01) and effectiveness (β = 0 .32, P = 0 .01) . The scores demonstrated statistically
significant incremental predictive validity over the personality assessment scores for predicting supervisor ratings of professionalism (β = 0 .26, P = 0 .03) .
Conclusions
These findings demonstrate that a carefully designed SJT can validly assess important personal attributes in clinicians working in mental health services. Such assessments are likely to represent evidence based, cost-effective tools that can support values-based recruitment to mental health service roles.
Keywords
Mental health services; personnel selection; professionalism; situational judgement testing; procedural knowledge.
Copyright and usage
© The Author(s), 2023 . Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence ([http://creativecommons.org/](http://creativecommons.org/)[ ](http://creativecommons.org/)[licenses/by/4.0/](licenses/by/4.0/)), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. | | Table 1 Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations of study variables – supervisor ratings only (adapted from ref. 20) | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | | Standardised SJT score (N = 109)
1. Dichotomous modal consensus score Self-ratings on the BFI-2-S (N = 109) | | | | | | | | | | 2. S Extraversion | −0.01 | | | | | | | | | 3. S Agreeableness | 0.19 | 0.12 | | | | | | | | 4. S Conscientiousness | −0.04 | 0.13 | 0.24* | | | | | | | 5. S Negative Emotionality | −0.02 | −0.26** | −0.25** | −0.27** | | | | | | 6. S Open-mindedness | 0.09 | 0.24* | −0.01 | 0.00 | 0.08 | | | | | Job performance (N = 69)
7. Effectiveness | 0.30* | 0.13 | 0.36** | 0.30* | −0.20 | 0.10 | | | | 8. Professionalism | 0.26* | −0.13 | 0.26* | 0.15 | −0.02 | −0.03 | 0.80*** | | | Mean | 0 | 3.52 | 4.19 | 3.92 | 2.52 | 3.72 | 80.57 | 82.92 | | s.d. | 1 | 0.72 | 0.54 | 0.66 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 14.50 | 12.64 | | BFI-2-S, Big Five Inventory–2 short form; S, self-report.
Bold indicates significant results (*P < 0 .05; **P < 0 .01; ***P < 0 .001) . Calculated using Spearman’s rho. | | | | | | | | | | Outcome | Coefficient (β) | P | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | R2 for the model | | ---

FAQs

What was the purpose of developing the situational judgement test (SJT)?

To evaluate applicants’ procedural knowledge of professionalism for clinical roles in mental health services.

How were the SJT items created?

Through interviews and focus groups with professionals, patients, and carers linked to a National Health Service mental health trust in England.

What outcome measures were used to validate the SJT?

Primary outcomes were supervisor ratings of professionalism and effectiveness; personality assessment scores were reported as a secondary outcome.

Sep 2, 2026

Uploaded by Jordan Avery