Search

Background This study examined the influence of two Situational Judgement Test (SJT) design features (response instructions and response format) on applicant perceptions. Additionally, we investigated demographic subgroup differences in applicant perceptions of an SJT. Methods Medical school applicants (N = 372) responded to an online survey on applicant perceptions, including a description and two example items of an SJT. Respondents randomly received one of four SJT versions (should do-rating, should do-pick-one, would do-rating, would do-pick-one). They rated overall favourability and items on four procedural justice factors (face validity, applicant differentiation, study relatedness and chance to perform) and ease-of-cheating. Additionally, applicant perceptions were compared for subgroups based on gender, ethnic background and first-generation university status. Results Applicants rated would-do instructions as easier to cheat than should-do instructions. Rating formats received more favourable judgements than pick-one formats on applicant differentiation, study-relatedness, chance to perform and ease of cheating. No significant main effect for demographic subgroup on applicant perceptions was found, but significant interaction effects showed that certain subgroups might have more pronounced preferences for certain SJT design features. Specifically, ethnic minority applicants – but not ethnic majority applicants – showed greater preference for should-do than would-do instructions. Additionally, first-generation university students – but not non-first-generation university students – were more favourable of rating formats than of pick-one formats. Conclusions Findings indicate that changing SJT design features may positively affect applicant perceptions by promoting procedural justice factors and reducing perceived ease of cheating and that response instructions and response format can increase the attractiveness of SJTs for minority applicants. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1390-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is defined by two out of the following three criteria being met: oligo- or anovulation, hyperandrogenism, and polycystic ovaries. Affected women are often obese and insulin resistant. Although the etiology is still unknown, members of the Transforming Growth Factor β (TGFβ) family, including Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs) and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), have been implicated to play a role. In this pilot study we aimed to measure serum BMP levels in PCOS patients. Methods Twenty patients, fulfilling the definition of PCOS according to the Rotterdam Criteria, were randomly selected. Serum BMP2, -4, -6 and −7 levels were measured using commercially available BMP2, BMP4, BMP6 and BMP7 immunoassays. Results Serum BMP2, serum BMP4 and serum BMP6 levels were undetectable. Three patients had detectable serum BMP7 levels, albeit at the lower limit of the standard curve. Conclusions BMP levels were undetectable in almost all patients. This suggests that with the current sensitivity of the BMP assays, measurement of serum BMP levels is not suitable as a diagnostic tool for PCOS.