Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Situational Judgment Tests: From Measures of Situational Judgment to Measures of General Domain Knowledge

  • Filip Lievens (a1) and Stephan J. Motowidlo (a2)
Extract

Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are typically conceptualized as contextualized selection procedures that capture candidate responses to a set of relevant job situations as a basis for prediction. SJTs share their sample-based and contextualized approach with work samples and assessment center exercises, although they differ from these other simulations by presenting the situations in a low-fidelity (e.g., written) format. In addition, SJTs do not require candidates to respond through actual behavior because they capture candidates’ situational judgment via a multiple-choice response format. Accordingly, SJTs have also been labeled low-fidelity simulations. This SJT paradigm has been very successful: In the last 2 decades, scientific interest in SJTs has grown, and they have made rapid inroads in practice as attractive, versatile, and valid selection procedures. Contrary to their popularity and the voluminous research on their criterion-related validity, however, there has been little attention to developing a theory of why SJTs work. Similarly, in SJT development, often little emphasis is placed on measuring clear and explicit constructs. Therefore, Landy (2007) referred to SJTs as “psychometric alchemy” (p. 418).

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Situational Judgment Tests: From Measures of Situational Judgment to Measures of General Domain Knowledge
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Situational Judgment Tests: From Measures of Situational Judgment to Measures of General Domain Knowledge
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Situational Judgment Tests: From Measures of Situational Judgment to Measures of General Domain Knowledge
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Filip Lievens, Department of Personnel Management and Work and Organizational Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. E-mail: filip.lievens@ugent.be
References
Hide All
Bartram, D. (2005). The great eight competencies: A criterion-centric approach to validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 11851203.
Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. L. (2005). Age, ability, and the role of prior knowledge on the acquisition of new domain knowledge: Promising results in a real-world learning environment. Psychology and Aging, 20, 341355.
Campion, M. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2013). Assessing personality with situational judgment measures: Interactionist psychology operationalized. In Christiansen, N. D. & Tett, R. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 439456). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143159.
Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., & Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational judgment tests: Constructs assessed and a meta-analysis of their criterion-related validities. Personnel Psychology, 63, 83117.
Clevenger, J., Pereira, G. M., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., & Harvey, V. S. (2001). Incremental validity of situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 410417.
Crook, A. E., Beier, M. E., Cox, C. B., Kell, H. J., Hanks, A. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2011). Measuring relationships between personality, knowledge, and performance using single–response situational judgment tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 363373.
Fetzer, M. S., & Tuzinski, K. (2014). Simulations for personnel selection. New York, NY: Springer.
George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence. Journal of Management, 18, 185213.
Ghosh, K., Motowidlo, S. J., & Nath, S. (2015). Technical knowledge, prosocial knowledge, and clinical performance of Indian medical students. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23, 5970.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109122.
Hambrick, D. Z. (2003). Why are some people more knowledgeable than others? A longitudinal study of knowledge acquisition. Memory &Cognition, 31, 902917.
Kanning, U. P., Grewe, K., Hollenberg, S., & Hadouch, M. (2006). From the subjects’ point of view: Reactions to different types of situational judgment items. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 168176.
Karren, R. J., & Barringer, M. W. (2002). A review and analysis of the policy-capturing methodology in organizational research and practice. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 337361.
Kell, H. J., Motowidlo, S. J., Martin, M. P., Stotts, A. L., & Moreno, C. A. (2014). Testing for independent effects of prosocial knowledge and technical knowledge on skill and performance. Human Performance, 27, 311327.
Krumm, S., Lievens, F., Hüffmeier, J., Lipnevich, A. A., Bendels, H., & Hertel, G. (2015). How “situational” is judgment in situational judgment tests? Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 399416.
Landy, F. J. (2007). The validation of personnel decisions in the twenty-first century: Back to the future. In McPhail, S. M. (Ed.), Alternate validation strategies: Developing and leveraging existing validity evidence (pp. 409426). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lievens, F., & De Soete, B. (2012). Simulations . In Schmitt, N. (Ed.), Handbook of assessment and selection (pp. 383410). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lievens, F., & Patterson, F. (2011). The validity and incremental validity of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simulations for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 927940.
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2006). Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: A comparison in terms of predictive validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 11811188.
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. (2012). The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via situational judgment tests for predicting academic success and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 460468.
Martin, M. P., Kell, H. J., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2015). Prosocial behavior: Exploring the role of personality, values, emotional intelligence, and prosocial knowledge. Unpublished manuscript.
McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. (2007). Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 6391.
McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 730740.
McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice and constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 103113.
Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 3953). New York, NY: Wiley.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Beier, M. E. (2010). Differentiating specific job knowledge from implicit trait policies in procedural knowledge measured by a situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 321333.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 7183.
Motowidlo, S. J., Crook, A. E., Kell, H. J., & Naemi, B. (2009). Measuring procedural knowledge more simply with a single-response situational judgment test. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 281288.
Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640647.
Motowidlo, S. J., Ghosh, K., Mendoza, A. M., Buchanen, A. E., & Lerma, M. N. (2015). A context-independent situational judgment test to measure prosocial implicit trait policy. Unpublished manuscript.
Motowidlo, S. J., Hanson, M. A., & Crafts, J. L. (1997). Low-fidelity simulations. In Whetzel, D. L. & Wheaton, G. R. (Eds.), Applied measurement methods in industrial psychology. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Motowidlo, S. J., Hooper, A. C., & Jackson, H. L. (2006a). Implicit policies about relations between personality traits and behavioral effectiveness in situational judgment items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 749761.
Motowidlo, S. J., Hooper, A. C., & Jackson, H. L. (2006b). A theoretical basis for situational judgment tests. In Weekley, J. A. & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 5782). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Motowidlo, S. J., Martin, M. P., & Crook, A. E. (2013). Relations between personality, knowledge, and behavior in professional service encounters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 18511861.
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Klinger, R. (2013). Are we really measuring what we say we're measuring? Using video techniques to supplement traditional construct validation procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 99113.
Richman-Hirsch, W. L., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Examining the impact of administration medium on examinee perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 880887.
Rockstuhl, T., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Lievens, F., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Putting judging situations into situational judgment tests: Evidence from intercultural multimedia SJTs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 464480.
Tett, P. R., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500551.
Van Overschelde, J. P., & Healy, A. F. (2001). Learning of nondomain facts in high- and low-knowledge domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 11601171.
Weekley, J. A., & Jones, C. (1999). Further studies of situational tests. Personnel Psychology, 52, 679700.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology
  • ISSN: 1754-9426
  • EISSN: 1754-9434
  • URL: /core/journals/industrial-and-organizational-psychology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed