Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis

被引:243
|
作者
McDaniel, Michael A.
Hartman, Nathan S.
Whetzel, Deborah L.
Grubb, W. Lee, III
机构
[1] Virginia Commonwealth Univ, Richmond, VA 23284 USA
[2] E Carolina Univ, Greenville, CA USA
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00065.x
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are personnel selection instruments that present job applicants with work-related situations and possible responses to the situations. There are typically 2 types of instructions: behavioral tendency and knowledge. Behavioral tendency instructions ask respondents to identify how they would likely behave in a given situation. Knowledge instructions ask respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of possible responses to a given situation. Results showed that response instructions influenced the constructs measured by the tests. Tests with knowledge instructions had higher correlations with cognitive ability. Tests with behavioral tendency instructions showed higher correlations with personality constructs. Results also showed that response instructions had little moderating effect on criterion-related validity. Supplemental analyses showed that the moderating effect of response instructions on construct validity was not due to systematic differences in item content. SJTs have incremental validity over cognitive ability, the Big 5, and over a composite of cognitive ability and the Big 5.
引用
收藏
页码:63 / 91
页数:29
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Retest Reliability of Situational Judgment Tests A Meta-Analysis
    Harenbrock, Jana
    Forthmann, Boris
    Holling, Heinz
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 22 (04) : 169 - 184
  • [2] Validity of constructed-response situational judgment tests in training programs for the health professions: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
    Hejri, Sara Mortaz H.
    Ho, Jordan L.
    Pan, Xuan
    Park, Yoon Soo
    Sam, Amir H.
    Mangardich, Haykaz
    MacIntosh, Alexander
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (01):
  • [3] Be careful what you ask for: Effects of response instructions on the construct validity and reliability of situational judgment tests
    Ployhart, RE
    Ehrhart, MG
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT, 2003, 11 (01) : 1 - 16
  • [4] Incremental validity of situational judgment tests
    Clevenger, J
    Pereira, GM
    Wiechmann, D
    Schmitt, N
    Harvey, VS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2001, 86 (03) : 410 - 417
  • [5] SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TESTS: CONSTRUCTS ASSESSED AND A META-ANALYSIS OF THEIR CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITIES
    Christian, Michael S.
    Edwards, Bryan D.
    Bradley, Jill C.
    [J]. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 2010, 63 (01) : 83 - 117
  • [6] The Effects of Response Instructions on Situational Judgment Test Performance and Validity in a High-Stakes Context
    Lievens, Filip
    Sackett, Paul R.
    Buyse, Tine
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 94 (04) : 1095 - 1101
  • [7] Effects of response instructions on faking a situational judgment test
    Nguyen, NT
    Biderman, MD
    McDaniel, MA
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SELECTION AND ASSESSMENT, 2005, 13 (04) : 250 - 260
  • [8] How "Situational" Is Judgment in Situational Judgment Tests?
    Krumm, Stefan
    Lievens, Filip
    Hueffmeier, Joachim
    Lipnevich, Anastasiya A.
    Bendels, Hanna
    Hertel, Guido
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2015, 100 (02) : 399 - 416
  • [9] Subgroup differences in situational judgment test performance: A meta-analysis
    Whetzel, Deborah L.
    McDaniel, Michael A.
    Nguyen, Nhung T.
    [J]. HUMAN PERFORMANCE, 2008, 21 (03) : 291 - 309
  • [10] Optimizing the validity of situational judgment tests: The importance of scoring methods
    Weng, Qingxiong
    Yang, Hui
    Lievens, Filip
    McDaniel, Michael A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VOCATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 2018, 104 : 199 - 209