We evaluated the use of the nominal response model (NRM) to score multiple-choice (also known as “select the best option”) situational judgment tests (SJTs). Using data from two large studies, we compared the reliability and correlations of NRM scores with those from various classical and item response theory (IRT) scoring methods. The SJTs measured emotional management (Study 1) and teamwork and collaboration (Study 2). In Study 1 the NRM scoring method was shown to be superior in reliability and in yielding higher correlations with external measures to three classical test theory–based and four other IRT-based methods. In Study 2, only slight differences between scoring methods were observed. An explanation for the discrepancy in findings is that in cases where item keys are ambiguous (as in Study 1), the NRM accommodates that ambiguity, but in cases where item keys are clear (as in Study 2), different methods provide interchangeable scores. We characterize ambiguous and clear keys using category response curves based on parameter estimates of the NRM and discuss the relationships between our findings and those from the wisdom-of-the-crowd literature.
A note on the interpretation and simulation of reparameterized intercepts in constrained versions of the nominal response model
