Infection Prevention and Control Judgment for Health and Care StaffThe step people skip is usually the one doing the work.

Methodology: Forty original exercises across six formats: fourteen graded situations, eight select-every-that-applies items, six match-the-following exercises, six keyed claims, four ordering exercises and three most-and-least forced choices. Construct statement: it measures the judgement a health or care worker applies to infection prevention during ordinary work - hand hygiene at the moments that matter and what gloves do, the shared environment and equipment, noticing and containing a possible infection, and raising a failed control. It does not test the regulations of any country, does not certify competence to practise, does not assess clinical diagnosis, and is not a substitute for the local policy that applies where the reader works. Declared response instruction for the situational spine: behavioural tendency - what you would actually do on a busy shift. The keyed claims, orderings and matching exercises carry a knowledge instruction and are reported as separate strands. Scoring places the respondent on a five-rung ladder with a behavioural descriptor at each rung, and a rung is claimed only when the whole ninety-five per cent band around the score lies inside it; where the band crosses a boundary the report states the boundary rather than choosing a side. No operational cut score is published, because no modified Angoff panel has been convened for this instrument and a cut invented without one is a number pretending to be a standard. Every strand is chance-corrected against each item's own authored answer priors rather than against a uniform guess. Keying draws on the convergent public evidence rather than one source: the World Health Organization's guidance on hand hygiene in health care and its five moments; the WHO and international guidance on standard and transmission-based precautions; the published evidence that gloves reduce rather than remove hand contamination and that hands must be cleaned after their removal; the chain of infection as taught in public health; the evidence on environmental contamination and the role of frequently touched surfaces; the sequence evidence on donning and doffing protective equipment; the literature on single-use device reprocessing and why it is not validated; the behavioural literature on why known controls lapse under time pressure and modelling by senior staff; occupational skin damage as an infection control risk in its own right; and the outbreak literature on cluster recognition and time-place-person reporting. All items are original works written for this instrument.