Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions.

1997 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Chan ◽  
Neal Schmitt
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Face Validity ◽  
Situational Judgment ◽  
Situational Judgment Tests ◽  
Subgroup Differences ◽  
Paper And Pencil ◽  
Method Of Assessment

scholarly journals A theory of branched situational judgment tests and their applicant reactions

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-270
Author(s):  
Craig M. Reddock ◽  
Elena M. Auer ◽  
Richard N. Landers
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Empirical Work ◽  
Face Validity ◽  
Common Language ◽  
Applicant Reactions ◽  
Situational Judgment ◽  
Situational Judgment Tests ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Qualitative Research Design ◽  
Final Theory

PurposeBranched situational judgment tests (BSJTs) are an increasingly common employee selection method, yet there is no theory and very little empirical work explaining the designs and impacts of branching. To encourage additional research on BSJTs, and to provide practitioners with a common language to describe their current and future practices, we sought to develop a theory of BSTJs.Design/methodology/approachGiven the absence of theory on branching, we utilized a ground theory qualitative research design, conducting interviews with 25 BSJT practitioner subject matter experts.FindingsOur final theory consists of three components: (1) a taxonomy of BSJT branching features (contingency, parallelism, convergence, and looping) and options within those features (which vary), (2) a causal theoretical model describing impacts of branching in general on applicant reactions via proximal effects on face validity, and (3) a causal theoretical model describing impacts on applicant reactions among branching designs via proximal effects on consistency of administration and opportunity to perform.Originality/valueOur work provides the first theoretical foundation on which future confirmatory research in the BSJT domain can be built. It also gives both researchers and practitioners a common language for describing branching features and their options. Finally, it reveals BSJTs as the results of a complex set of interrelated design features, discouraging the oversimplified contrasting of “branching” vs “not branching.”

Subgroup Differences in Situational Judgment Test Performance: A Meta-Analysis

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah L. Whetzel ◽  
Michael A. McDaniel ◽  
Nhung T. Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Test Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Situational Judgment Test ◽  
Situational Judgment ◽  
Subgroup Differences

SJTs as Measures of General Domain Knowledge for Multimedia Formats: Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words?

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bobby Naemi ◽  
Michelle Martin-Raugh ◽  
Harrison Kell
Keyword(s):  
Domain Knowledge ◽  
Prosocial Behaviors ◽  
General Knowledge ◽  
Situational Judgment ◽  
Situational Judgment Tests ◽  
General Domain ◽  
Paper And Pencil ◽  
Single Response

Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) present a case for situational judgment tests (SJTs) to be conceptualized as measures of general domain knowledge, which the authors define as knowledge of the effectiveness of general domains such as integrity, conscientiousness, and prosocial behaviors in different jobs. This argument comes from work rooted in the use of SJTs as measures of implicit trait policies (Motowidlo & Beier, 2010; Motowidlo, Hooper, & Jackson, 2006), measured with a format described as a “single response SJT” (Kell, Motowidlo, Martin, Stotts, & Moreno, 2014; Motowidlo, Crook, Kell, & Naemi, 2009). Given evidence that SJTs can be used as measures of general domain knowledge, the focal article concludes with a suggestion that general knowledge can be measured not only by traditional text-based or paper-and-pencil SJTs but also through varying alternate formats, including multimedia SJTs and interactive SJTs.

Using situational judgment tests to measure teamwork and communication

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
James N. Kurtessis ◽  
Kelley J. Krokos ◽  
Barbara A. Fritzsche
Keyword(s):  
Situational Judgment ◽  
Situational Judgment Tests
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document