UCAT Situational Judgement: SJT Tasks and Formats Explained
Understanding the UCAT Situational Judgement Test (SJT)
The Situational Judgement Test (SJT) is the fifth and final subtest of the UCAT, assessing your ability to handle real-world scenarios in a manner befitting a future medical or dental professional. Unlike the other UCAT sections, SJT isn’t about academic skills or logical puzzles – it’s about your judgement in ethical and professional situations. According to the official UCAT Consortium, the SJT “measures your capacity to understand real world situations and to identify critical factors and appropriate behaviour in dealing with them” (Reference 1). In other words, it tests whether you can recognize the best course of action (and the worst) in scenarios involving patients, colleagues, and dilemmas you might face as a healthcare student or practitioner.
Format & Timing: You’ll have 26 minutes to answer 69 situational judgement questions, which are grouped into a series of short scenarios. Each scenario describes a situation (often involving a medical student, doctor, or dentist in training) followed by several questions. You may get up to 4–6 questions per scenario. This tight timing works out to only about 20 seconds per question, so time management and quick decision-making are crucial. Remember that there’s no negative marking – you earn full marks for a perfectly correct answer, and partial credit for answers that are close to the correct answer (Reference 1). Your performance is then expressed as a Band 1–4, with Band 1 being the highest (indicating your judgements were very similar to those of experts) and Band 4 the lowest. Don’t be disheartened by the “band” scoring; many universities consider Band 2 or 3 as acceptable, but achieving Band 1 can give you an edge.
Professional Principles: What makes an answer “correct” in SJT? The scoring is based on the consensus of experts (experienced clinicians and medical educators) about the most appropriate and ethical actions in each scenario. The key principles are grounded in professional guidelines like the General Medical Council’s Good Medical Practice – which covers duties such as prioritising patient welfare, maintaining integrity, teamwork, respecting confidentiality, and recognizing the limits of your competence. In fact, the UCAT official guidance specifically encourages candidates to familiarize themselves with the GMC’s Good Medical Practice guidelines as part of SJT preparation (Reference 2). If you understand these core values – e.g. patient safety comes first, honesty and integrity, respect for patients and colleagues, and knowing when to seek help – you’ll have a solid compass for navigating any SJT question. Always approach the scenarios from the perspective of a responsible medical professional (even if you’re “just” a student in the scenario, think about what should be done in line with professional standards).
Overview of SJT Question Formats
The UCAT SJT section uses a few different question formats to assess your judgement. It’s important to be familiar with each format and tailor your approach accordingly. The three main task types you’ll encounter are:
Appropriateness Questions – You are given an action/response and must rate how appropriate it is in the scenario’s context.
Importance Questions – You are given a consideration/factor and must rate how important it is to take into account in the scenario.
Drag-and-Drop (Most/Least) Questions – A newer format where you must judge multiple responses, typically by categorising each as either appropriate or not, or important or not (effectively identifying the most appropriate/important and least appropriate/important options among those provided).
The majority of SJT items will be the standard Appropriateness and Importance rating questions with four-point scales. A smaller number of questions (in recent years, a handful of the 69) use the two-option drag-and-drop style format. We’ll break down each type in detail and give you tips on how to approach them effectively. Let’s dive in! 🚀
🔴 Live UCAT Course – Limited Places Available
The UCAT is competitive — your preparation shouldn’t be.
Join our live, expert-led UCAT course and get real-time guidance to boost your score, build confidence, and secure medical or dental interviews.
Why students choose Blue Peanut:
- Live teaching with opportunities to ask questions
- UCAT-focused strategies that actually work
- Clear, step-by-step guidance for every UCAT section
- Built by doctors & admissions experts
- Trusted by students applying to top UK medical & dental schools
👉 Places on our live UCAT course are limited.
Book now to secure your spot and stay ahead of the competition.
Appropriateness Questions – Rating Actions in Context
Appropriateness questions are perhaps the most common in the SJT. For these, you’ll read a scenario and then see a proposed action or response that the central character (often “you” in the scenario) might take. Your task is to judge how appropriate that action is given the circumstances. In other words, is it a good thing to do or not? And to what degree?
Answer Options: You’ll use a 4-point scale of appropriateness. The options (from best to worst) are typically:
🟢 A very appropriate thing to do – An ideal or very good response. This action is definitely correct or highly advisable in the situation.
🟡 Appropriate, but not ideal – A reasonable action that isn’t perfect but is alright. Perhaps not the absolute best course, but one that is acceptable and does some good.
🟠 Inappropriate, but not awful – Not a great action; it would be a poor choice in the situation, though it might not be the worst possible. It shows some lack of judgment or has minor negative consequences, but isn’t catastrophic.
🔴 A very inappropriate thing to do – An action that is definitely wrong to do. This is a terrible idea in the scenario and would likely have serious negative consequences or be highly unprofessional.
It’s vital to understand these definitions. The exam expects you to distinguish not just “right vs wrong,” but shades of grey in between. For example, some responses are acceptable but suboptimal (🟡), whereas others are simply incorrect, though perhaps understandable (🟠), and some are outright unacceptable (🔴). Think carefully about why an action might be less than ideal or cross the line into truly inappropriate territory.
How to Approach Appropriateness Questions: 🙂 Stay objective and professional. Put yourself in the shoes of a responsible trainee doctor or dentist in that scenario. Ask: Does this action align with professional ethics and the patient’s best interests? If yes, it leans toward appropriate; if it violates a guideline or could harm trust/safety, it’s inappropriate.
Here are some effective strategies for Appropriateness questions:
Identify Extremes First:
It often helps to quickly decide whether the action is generally appropriate. Is it something a good professional should do (at least okay), or is it something one shouldn’t do? This effectively sorts the action into the top half of the scale (🟢/🟡) or bottom half (🟠/🔴). For instance, blatantly unethical actions (lying to a patient, ignoring a serious problem) are immediately in the inappropriate half, whereas well-intentioned, reasonable actions start in the appropriate half. Marking this first cut can earn you partial credit even if you aren’t spot-on with the exact degree. After that, consider the degree: is it very or just moderately (in)appropriate? If it’s clearly the best possible action, give it 🟢; if it’s good but has minor shortcomings, 🟡. Conversely, if it’s wrong but maybe somewhat understandable, 🟠; if it’s an absolute no-no, 🔴. This two-step thinking (Appropriate vs Not, then fine-tune) keeps you efficient and accurate.
Use Ethical Principles as a Guide:
Consider the GMC guidelines and basic ethics. Does the action prioritise patient care and safety? Does it maintain honesty and professionalism? For example, whistleblowing about a safety issue is often appropriate (you have a duty to raise concerns), whereas covering up a mistake or avoiding a difficult conversation for personal comfort is inappropriate. Actions showing empathy, honesty, and diligence tend to be appropriate. Actions reflecting self-interest, negligence, or unprofessional behaviour are generally inappropriate. Keep an eye out for buzzwords or themes in the scenario: if a patient is at risk or upset, an appropriate action is usually to address that risk or concern promptly. If it’s about a colleague’s poor behaviour, an appropriate step might be to seek advice or gently intervene rather than ignore it.
Consider Consequences:
Think a step ahead – what would happen if I did this? An action is very appropriate (🟢) if it likely resolves the issue or leads to a positive outcome without significant downsides. If the action is generally good but maybe not the optimal resolution (perhaps it helps somewhat but doesn’t fully solve the problem), it might be just “Appropriate, but not ideal” (🟡). An inappropriate action often either fails to address the problem or creates a new problem. If the negative consequence is mild or the action simply isn’t helpful, it could be 🟠. But if the action could seriously harm someone, breach trust, or is a clear violation of rules, it’s 🔴. Always weigh how the action would play out in a real professional setting.
Avoid Personal Bias:
Importantly, answer with professional judgement, not personal opinion. The test isn’t asking “what would you do personally?” but rather “what is the right thing to do as a responsible professional?” Sometimes an action you feel you might do out of convenience or emotion (e.g. avoid confronting a colleague because it’s uncomfortable) is not the appropriate professional choice. So, always frame your thinking by the ideal behaviour of a good doctor/dentist, not the easiest or most agreeable path. As one UCAT guide puts it: you’re not supposed to apply your own personal moral code in SJT, but rather the accepted professional standards. Keep the tone empathetic, fair, and responsible.
Practice Example: You are a medical student on ward placement. You overhear another student making insensitive jokes about a patient behind their back. – If the proposed action is “Confront the student immediately and loudly reprimand them in front of others”, how would we rate this? It addresses a legitimate concern (stopping unprofessional behaviour, which is good), but doing so by publicly shaming them is not ideal (it could cause defensiveness or embarrassment without a constructive outcome). The action has elements of right and wrong. It’s certainly not “very appropriate” due to the confrontational approach, but nor is it completely inappropriate because the intent (defending patient dignity) is valid. The best fit might be “Appropriate, but not ideal” (🟡) – the concern is correct, the method is flawed. A very appropriate (🟢) response might have been to speak to the peer privately or inform a supervisor discreetly, which achieves the goal professionally. On the other hand, doing nothing at all or laughing along would be very inappropriate (🔴). Using scenarios like this in practice can help you fine-tune your sense of the gradations.
Importance Questions – Weighing Factors & Considerations
Importance questions form the second major question type in SJT. Here, after the scenario, you’ll be presented with one or more considerations, factors, or pieces of information related to the situation. Your task is to rate how important each one is in deciding what to do. Essentially, you’re judging whether something matters a lot, matters a little, or doesn’t matter when making a decision in that scenario.
Answer Options: Importance is also rated on a 4-point scale:
🟢 Very important – This consideration is critical to the decision. It should heavily influence the action taken. (If you ignored this factor, you’d likely make the wrong decision.)
🟡 Important – This factor carries significant weight, though it’s not absolutely critical. It should influence the decision, but perhaps alongside other factors.
🟠 Of minor importance – This is mostly irrelevant or only slightly relevant. It might have a small effect on the decision, but whether it’s considered or not wouldn’t change the outcome much.
🔴 Not important at all – This consideration does not matter in the context of the scenario. It should not affect the decision-making. (It’s essentially irrelevant or completely outweighed by more important concerns.)
For example, if the scenario involves a patient refusing treatment, a consideration such as “the patient’s reasons for refusal” would be very important, whereas “the convenience of the schedule for the doctor” would likely not be important at all! Learning to distinguish relevant from irrelevant factors is key to these questions.
How to Approach Importance Questions: 💡 Focus on the core issue. Start by understanding the primary problem or goal in the scenario. Ask yourself: What is the main thing that needs to be resolved or decided here? Once you grasp that, evaluate each consideration against this core issue: Does it directly impact solving the problem or making the right decision? If yes, it’s important; if no, it’s not. Let’s break down some strategies:
Identify the Key Priority:
Determine what the most important concern in the scenario is. Is it patient safety or patient autonomy? Maintaining professionalism? For example, if a junior doctor has made a mistake, the key priorities might be patient safety and honesty (ensuring the patient is safe and the error is admitted and corrected). Any consideration that affects patient safety or honesty will be very important. Other factors, such as the junior doctor’s embarrassment or the potential paperwork, are minor and not important compared to the patient’s welfare. By clarifying the overarching priority, you can quickly categorise factors: those directly relating to that priority (🟢 or 🟡) versus those tangential to it (🟠 or 🔴).
“Top-half vs Bottom-half” Method:
Similar to the approach with appropriateness, first decide if a consideration is important (matters) or not important (doesn’t really matter) in the situation. This essentially places it in the top half (🟢/🟡) or the bottom half (🟠/🔴) of the scale. If you think the factor should influence the decision, even a little, then it’s at least “Important”. If it truly makes no difference to a good outcome, it’s in the not-important side. After that initial sort, decide the degree. Is it critical (if yes, upgrade to “Very important” 🟢) or just one of several relevant factors (“Important” 🟡)? If it’s not important, is it completely negligible (“Not important at all” 🔴) or maybe has a tiny sliver of relevance (“Of minor importance” 🟠)? Again, this two-step approach helps ensure you get partial marks – being roughly right is better than being wildly wrong. For instance, confusing “very important” with “important” is a minor slip (you’ll still get some credit), but confusing “important” with “not important” is a big miss. So at minimum, get half correct.
Consider the Scenario Context:
Many important questions involve patient-centred scenarios. Ask yourself, “Does this factor affect the patient’s well-being, rights, or the ethical handling of the situation?” Those are usually crucial. For example, in a scenario where a patient is upset about their treatment, considerations about the patient’s feelings and understanding are very important (because respecting patient autonomy and emotional state is key). In contrast, a factor like “the doctor’s reputation if the patient complains” would be minor or not important – focusing on personal or institutional image isn’t as important as addressing the patient’s concerns in that moment. Another example: if the scenario involves allocating a resource fairly among colleagues, a consideration like “ensuring everyone gets a fair chance” is very important, whereas “pleasing a friend on the team” is not. Always tie it back to principles: fairness, safety, ethics = important; personal convenience, minor procedural details, or anything outside the scope of the scenario’s main problem = not important.
Beware of Red Herrings:
Test setters often include some considerations that sound relevant but really aren’t, to test your judgement. For instance, in a scenario about a colleague’s inappropriate behaviour, a statement like “The hospital’s reputation if this incident became public” might appear concerning, but ethically, the priority should be addressing the behaviour itself and patient safety – reputation management is a distraction (thus of minor or no importance in deciding how to act). A good rule: if a factor involves personal or institutional gain, inconvenience, or image, it’s usually not as important as factors involving ethical duties, safety, or well-being. Keep an eye out for these and don’t let them trick you into giving them undue weight.
Practice Example: A dental student finds that a fellow student has been reusing single-use surgical gloves to save supplies. Considerations might include: (A) Patient safety (risk of infection from reused gloves), (B) The cost of gloves to the clinic, (C) The college’s infection control guidelines, (D) The friendship with the fellow student. How would we rate these?
(A) Patient safety – clearly Very Important 🟢 (the primary concern is that reusing gloves could harm patients).
(B) Cost of gloves – likely Not important at all 🔴 in deciding the immediate action; saving money never justifies compromising safety or breaking rules.
(C) Official guidelines – Important or Very Important 🟢/🟡; they exist to ensure safety, so adhering to them is critical (arguably very important as well, since breaking them can’t be allowed).
(D) Friendship – Not important 🔴; personal relationships should not impede addressing a serious professional issue. Perhaps at most “minor importance” 🟠 if you consider not wanting to upset your friend – but ethically, that should not change what you do.
By practising this way, you learn to filter out the noise and zoom in on what truly matters in a scenario.
Drag-and-Drop / Most-Least Questions – New Multi-Response Format
In recent years, the UCAT introduced a drag-and-drop style question format for Situational Judgement. These questions are essentially a twist on the standard appropriateness and importance questions. Instead of presenting one action or factor at a time with a multiple-choice scale, the question will present several responses or considerations (usually 3) together. You will then have to categorise each one as either Appropriate or Not Appropriate (if it’s an action) or Important or Not Important (if it’s a consideration). Typically, you drag labels like “Appropriate” or “Not appropriate” next to each of the responses. This format can also be thought of as identifying the most and least appropriate options within the set, since, effectively, you’re separating acceptable from unacceptable responses.
Example of a drag-and-drop UCAT SJT question where the candidate must designate each response by Imogen as "Appropriate" or "Not Appropriate." In this scenario, the student needs to judge each of the three proposed actions independently.
What Makes These Different: Unlike the regular questions, where you focus on one item at a time, here you’re dealing with multiple items in one question. You have to make a judgment for each option presented under the scenario. Importantly, only two answer choices are available for each – there’s no gradation beyond saying something is simply appropriate vs not, or important vs not. This means you’re essentially doing a binary sort for each response. For example, if given three possible actions that a student could take in a scenario, you might decide that one action is appropriate (✔️) while the other two are not appropriate (✖️). Or perhaps two are appropriate, and one is not – each must be judged on its own merits.
How to Approach Drag-and-Drop Questions: These can be more challenging because they require evaluating several actions at once and comparing them. Here are some tips to tackle them effectively:
Read the Scenario Thoroughly:
Make sure you clearly understand the scenario and the problem or decision. With multiple responses to judge, it’s easy to get mixed up if your grasp of the scenario is fuzzy. Take a moment to identify the key issue and the role you’re in. For instance, if the scenario is “You are a junior doctor and witness a colleague doing something questionable,” you know the crux is professional duty to address the misconduct vs hierarchy or friendship issues. Every proposed response will relate to that tension.
Evaluate Options One by One:
Treat each proposed action or consideration independently at first. Go through the list and ask for each: “Is this an appropriate thing to do or not? Important or not?” Use the same reasoning as we did for the single items. Don’t get tricked into ranking them against each other just yet; first, label each as either acceptable or not on its own merits. For example, if the options are three possible reactions you could have, it’s possible that none are ideal (maybe all are a bit problematic, but one is clearly the best of a bad bunch). Even if one is “less bad” than the others, you might still label that one as “Appropriate” and the other two “Not Appropriate” if that one action is reasonable and the other two are clearly poor. The question format doesn’t force a single “most” and single “least” – conceivably, all three could be inappropriate, but usually at least one will be a sensible action.
Then Consider the Set as a Whole:
After labelling each, double-check them relative to each other: did you indeed mark the most appropriate option? Usually, out of a set of responses, one will stand out as the best thing to do – that should be marked “Appropriate” (or “Important” if we’re talking factors). One will likely be the worst idea – obviously “Not Appropriate.” Sometimes more than one action can be acceptable in a given scenario, but often the format is designed so that one is right and the others are wrong. Ensure consistency: if you marked two options as “Appropriate,” are you confident the scenario would actually approve of both? If, for instance, one action is to report a problem and another action is to ignore it, clearly you wouldn’t mark both as appropriate. Use the scenario details and your ethical compass to make sure you haven’t been too lenient or too harsh across the board.
Apply a Process of Elimination:
If unsure, start by identifying the clearly worst option first. Often, one response will be obviously very inappropriate – eliminate that as “Not Appropriate.” Then identify if one looks clearly better than the rest – that one likely deserves an “Appropriate.” The remaining one might be either appropriate or not, depending on the nuance; weigh it carefully. This method is akin to ranking: find the best, find the worst, then deal with the middle. In fact, some drag-and-drop questions in the past have explicitly asked for “Most appropriate” and “Least appropriate” identification, which is essentially what you’re doing here implicitly.
Be Mindful of Time:
These questions can eat up more time because you’re effectively answering three mini-questions in one. The UCAT Consortium introduced them to deepen the assessment, but they acknowledge it’s more time-consuming (Reference 3). Keep an eye on the clock. If you find a drag-and-drop set particularly tricky, one strategy is to flag it and move on, finishing all the easier single-item questions first, then coming back if time permits. Since each scenario’s questions are standalone, you won’t lose context by returning later. However, use this strategy carefully – you don’t want to leave too many unanswered at the end. Practice a few of these multi-item questions under timed conditions to get a feel for the pacing. Perhaps allocate slightly more time to them than a single question, but not so much that it derails your overall timing.
Example: Scenario: You are a junior doctor, and you notice your senior consultant has made a minor mistake in a patient’s prescription. You have a good relationship with the consultant. Possible responses: (1) Immediately correct the mistake in the chart and inform the consultant politely. (2) Say nothing, but keep an eye on the patient’s medication yourself. (3) Tell the consultant in front of the whole team that they made an error, so it gets fixed promptly. – How would we label each?
(1) Correcting the mistake and politely informing – This is Appropriate. It prioritises patient safety and honesty while still being respectful.
(2) Staying silent but monitoring – Not Appropriate. Although it shows care for the patient, it avoids addressing the root issue and relies on you (who might not be there 24/7) to catch any problem. It’s a way to hide the error, which isn’t right.
(3) Calling it out publicly – Likely Not Appropriate. The error should be corrected, but publicly embarrassing your senior could be unnecessary; it might have been possible to inform them discreetly. Publicly pointing it out could undermine your senior in front of others and harm your working relationship, when a quiet word would suffice. (It’s not as blatantly wrong as ignoring it entirely – the intention to fix is good – but the manner is questionable. Given only “Appropriate/Not”, it leans towards Not Appropriate due to the unprofessional approach. If there were a scale, it might be in between, but here we have to choose a side.)
In this set, only response (1) receives the “Appropriate” tag; the other two are “Not Appropriate.” This matches the idea that (1) is the best action, (3) is the next (it does fix the issue but in a less appropriate way), and (2) is the worst (failing to act properly). We effectively identified the most and least appropriate by categorising each.
Top Tips and Strategies for SJT Success 🎓🩺
Finally, let’s cover some general tips to boost your performance in the Situational Judgement section:
Know the “Good Medical Practice” Principles:
As emphasised earlier, a solid understanding of professional guidelines and ethics is your secret weapon. It might sound abstract now, but those principles translate directly into SJT answers. For example, GMC guidance says, “make the care of your patient your first concern.” In an SJT scenario, anything that compromises patient care (like prioritising your convenience or avoiding a difficult truth) will usually be inappropriate. Likewise, guidelines on working within competence, being honest and open, respecting patient confidentiality, and teamwork appear in SJT questions. When practising, ask yourself which principle is being tested here? This helps you eliminate options that violate core values. A quick read of Good Medical Practice (Reference 2) or summaries of it can be really helpful. You don’t need to memorise it word-for-word, but remember the key themes: patient first, work collaboratively, act with integrity, maintain competence, and speak up if something’s wrong.
Keep a Patient-Centred Mindset:
In any scenario involving a patient (directly or indirectly), their safety and well-being are paramount. For instance, if a patient is dissatisfied or confused, an appropriate action will involve addressing their concerns or clarifying information – not just doing what’s easiest for the staff. If there’s potential harm to a patient, the best answer is the one that prevents it. Thinking “What would I want done if this were my family member?” from a professional standpoint can guide you towards the compassionate and safe choice.
Don’t Let Stress Skew Your Judgement:
The SJT often introduces dilemmas – perhaps an authority figure is doing something questionable, or you’ve made a mistake and fear punishment. In these cases, the right action can be uncomfortable, but still necessary. The examiners want to see that you won’t let stress, fear, or personal relationships lead you to poor judgment. For example, just because a senior doctor might react angrily, you should still point out a serious error (appropriately). If your friend is doing something unprofessional, you shouldn’t ignore it just to avoid awkwardness. Courage and integrity are being tested in tough situations. So, when you catch yourself rationalising an action because it’s easier (“Maybe I shouldn’t report this because I might get in trouble...”), that’s a hint that the opposite action is likely the right one in SJT terms.
Use Partial Marking to Your Advantage:
As mentioned, you get partial credit if your answer is close to the correct one. This means do attempt every question – never leave a question blank or “not sure.” Even if unsure between two adjacent options (say, very appropriate vs appropriate), make your best guess. There’s no penalty for slight misjudgement. Also, the earlier tip of getting the general half right (appropriate vs. not, important vs. not) is crucial. Aim to be on the right side of the spectrum. That way, at worst, you drop one mark instead of all marks for that question. Knowing this can also calm your nerves – you don’t have to be perfect, just reasonable in your estimations.
Time Management and Stamina:
The SJT is at the tail-end of a long exam. Many students feel fatigued by the time they reach it, which can affect concentration. To counter this, practice doing full-length mocks or doing some SJT practice when you’re a bit tired to simulate test conditions. During the real exam, use the 1-minute instruction screen before SJT to close your eyes, take a few deep breaths, and reset your focus. Pace yourself during the section – roughly, you have just under 30 seconds per question, but since questions are in sets, you might spend a minute or two reading a scenario and then a few seconds on each question related to it. If a particular question (or set) is consuming too much time, don’t be afraid to mark your best guess and move on. You can flag it and return if time allows. It’s better to get to all questions with at least a guess than to spend too long on one scenario and miss out on answering later ones. The UCAT scoring doesn’t weight questions differently – every question is a chance to score marks, so give yourself the opportunity to answer all 69.
Practice, Practice, Practice:
While SJT may seem more subjective than other sections, you can absolutely improve with practice. By doing lots of practice questions, you’ll start to see patterns in what kind of actions are deemed appropriate or not. You’ll also get faster at reading scenarios and zeroing in on the key issues. Use reputable question banks or official UCAT practice tests to get used to the style. After practising, review explanations for any questions you got wrong or were unsure about. The explanations often reference the underlying principles (e.g. “Action X is very inappropriate because it breaches confidentiality by doing Y.”). Over time, you’ll internalise these principles. If possible, discuss tricky scenarios with teachers or peers – sometimes hearing the rationale can solidify your understanding.
Stay Calm and Systematic:
During the test, keep a cool head. Each scenario is separate, so if one goes poorly, mentally flush it and move on fresh to the next. Use a systematic approach for each question type, as we’ve outlined: for appropriateness and importance, eliminate extremes, then fine-tune. For drag-and-drop, tackle each item methodically. Trust the process you practised. And trust your common-sense ethics – often, the SJT answer is what a conscientious, caring person would do, guided by training and honesty. If something feels obviously wrong ethically, it probably is. If something seems genuinely helpful and ethical, it’s likely appropriate. Don’t overcomplicate your reasoning.
Read Carefully, But Don’t Overread:
Pay attention to details in the scenario, like who you are (your role), who’s involved, and any specific instructions or constraints. These details can change what’s appropriate. For example, “You are a first-year medical student” suggests your authority is limited – so an appropriate action might be to inform a supervisor rather than handle it all yourself. Conversely, if “You are the FY1 doctor on duty,” you’re expected to take more responsibility. However, avoid inventing details that aren’t there or getting stuck in “what if” tangents beyond the scenario. Deal with the scenario as given. All the info you need is usually provided; if something isn’t mentioned, don’t assume it. Stick to the facts presented and the general professional norms.
By following these strategies and being aware of the task formats, you’ll become much more confident in navigating the Situational Judgement section. Remember, at its heart, the SJT is about demonstrating empathy, ethics, and good sense. With familiarity and practice, you’ll start to find that the “best” answers often stand out logically once you apply the right mindset. Stay calm, think like a professional, and you’ll be well on your way to scoring highly – possibly even that coveted Band 1! 🎉👩⚕️👨⚕️ Good luck, and trust your judgement!
References and Further Reading
UCAT Consortium (Official) – Test Format and Scoring. Describes the UCAT subtests, timing, and scoring (including how SJT is scored in Bands with partial marking). ucat.ac.uk
General Medical Council – Good Medical Practice (2013). Core guidance outlining the professional values and behaviours expected of doctors in the UK. (Relevant to principles tested in SJT.) gmc-uk.org