AAMC PREview flashcards
AAMC PREview · Build recall with a focused review session.
32 cards. Read the term and the definition here. The deck at the top of this page is optional.
- PREview test format
- A situational judgment test in which examinees rate the effectiveness of several possible responses to written scenarios rather than selecting one single best answer.
- Effectiveness rating scale
- A Likert-type scale from most to least effective used to score each response option; ratings are compared with consensus judgments of trained reviewers.
- Ethical responsibility items
- Scenarios testing honesty, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and boundaries; the effective response acknowledges the duty and takes proportionate action.
- Empathy and compassion items
- Scenarios testing recognition of another person's feelings and a response that validates emotion while remaining constructive and appropriate to the role.
- Resilience and adaptability items
- Scenarios involving setbacks, criticism, or changing demands; effective responses seek feedback, adjust plans, and use support resources rather than avoiding the issue.
- Teamwork and collaboration items
- Scenarios testing shared goals, role clarity, and handling disagreement; effective options invite input and address problems directly with the involved party.
- Communication items
- Scenarios testing clarity, active listening, and audience-appropriate disclosure; effective options confirm understanding and inform the right people promptly.
- Thinking and reasoning items
- Scenarios testing prioritization, weighing competing obligations, and using available evidence; effective options identify the core problem before acting.
- Confidentiality decision rule
- Share information only with those who need it for care or safety; broad disclosure or gossip is rated ineffective even when well-intentioned.
- Conflict of interest rule
- Disclose the competing interest and recuse or seek guidance; hiding the relationship or self-approving the decision is rated least effective.
- Receiving feedback rule
- Effective responses listen without defensiveness, ask clarifying questions, and state a concrete change; dismissing feedback or over-apologizing without action is less effective.
- Role boundaries rule
- Actions must fit the examinee's stated role; acting beyond authority (overriding a supervisor, making clinical decisions) is typically rated less effective.
- Perspective-taking
- Identifying another person's viewpoint and emotion before responding; effective options name the feeling and check understanding rather than assuming.
- Active listening behaviors
- Paraphrasing, asking open questions, and withholding judgment; these signal understanding and are favored in communication scenarios.
- Constructive coping
- Seeking support, reframing setbacks as learning, and adjusting strategy; contrasted with avoidance, blame, or rumination in resilience items.
- Consensus scoring
- Response effectiveness is judged against aggregated expert ratings, so idiosyncratic but defensible answers may still score lower than the consensus view.
- Total scaled score
- PREview reports an overall scaled score with a confidence band rather than separate pass/fail results for each competency domain.
- No domain weights published
- The source does not state relative weighting of competency domains, so preparation should treat each domain as roughly equally important.
- Most effective option pattern
- Typically combines direct, timely action with communication to relevant parties and stays within the examinee's stated role and authority.
- Least effective option pattern
- Typically ignores the problem, defers indefinitely, conceals information, or oversteps authority; these are common distractors rated lowest.
- Passive distractor pattern
- Options such as waiting, hoping the issue resolves, or avoiding conversation feel safe but are usually rated ineffective because they leave the problem unaddressed.
- Overreach distractor pattern
- Options that bypass a supervisor, breach confidentiality, or exceed role authority appear decisive but are usually rated ineffective.
- Immediate-issue test
- Ask whether the option resolves the problem presented in the scenario; options that address a side issue or nothing at all rank lower.
- Stakeholder test
- Ask whether the option respects the dignity and interests of every party named in the scenario; options that sacrifice one party rank lower.
- Feasibility test
- Ask whether the option could realistically be carried out given the stated time, resources, and role constraints in the scenario.
- Self-contained scenario rule
- All facts needed to answer appear in the scenario text; no outside clinical, legal, or institutional knowledge is required.
- Deadline scenario rule
- When time pressure is stated, effective options act promptly while still informing relevant parties; indefinite delay is rated ineffective.
- Rank-ordering strategy
- Rate the option that combines action and communication highest, and the option that avoids or oversteps lowest, then place remaining options between.
- Escalation rule
- Escalate to a supervisor or appropriate authority when the issue exceeds your role or safety is at risk; escalating trivial issues instead of acting is less effective.
- Consistency across items
- Apply the same effectiveness standard to every scenario; shifting standards between items reduces agreement with consensus ratings.
- Reading the prompt carefully
- Note whether the question asks for most effective, least effective, or importance; answering the wrong question type is a common avoidable error.
- No external knowledge needed
- Because scenarios are self-contained, prior coursework in ethics or policy is not required; reasoning from stated facts is sufficient.