SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TESTS, RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS, AND VALIDITY: A META‐ANALYSIS

By Michael A. McDaniel, Nathan S. Hartman, Deborah L. Whetzel, W. L. Grubb. 2007

455 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6eaf5dd69b513eee3f68effd6a039499a50e4974

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Citations in the corpus

EMPLOYEES' CHALLENGING JOB EXPERIENCES AND SUPERVISORS' EVALUATIONS OF PROMOTABILITY (2009, result): “This behavioral approach is consistent with the increasing usage of behaviorally oriented assessment tools such as situational judgment tests (SJTs) in human resource decisions (McDaniel, Hartman, Whetzel, & Grubb, 2007).”
IN SUPPORT OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS (2007, background): “For example, meta-analytic operational validities for job performance have been reported as .36 for assessment centers (Gaugler, Rosenthal, Thornton, & Bentson, 1987), .44 for structured interviews (McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994), .35 for biodata (Rothstein, Schmidt, Erwin, Owens, & Spa”
Personnel selection. (2008, background): “The type of response instructions seems to be a key factor, as it has been found to affect the cognitive loading and amount of response distortion in SJTs (McDaniel et al. 2007, Nguyen et al. 2005).”
The State of Research on Situational Judgment Tests: A Content Analysis and Directions for Future Research (2014, methodology): “It might be expected that SJTs that contain instruction formats that are more behavioral (i.e., those emphasizing personality trait measurement; see McDaniel et al., 2007) would exhibit higher levels of test–retest reliability because personality traits are relatively stable over time.”
Situational Judgment Tests: From Measures of Situational Judgment to Measures of General Domain Knowledge (2015, background): “Importantly, the McDaniel et al. (2007) metaanalysis also revealed that SJT scores explained 1% to 2% of additional variance over both cognitive ability and Big Five trait scores.”
Subgroup Differences in Situational Judgment Test Performance: A Meta-Analysis (2008, methodology): “Because SJTs are correlated with both cognitive and noncognitive traits (e.g., personality; McDaniel et al., 2007), we expect that the magnitude of race differences in SJTs will be smaller than that found in cognitive ability tests and that the cognitive loading of SJTs will moderate mean race…”
Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research (2009, methodology): “…related to student issues (e.g., teamwork studying for exams, organizing, accomplishing assignments, interpersonal skills, social responsibility, perseverance, and integrity) and students were asked how they would respond (a behavioral tendency instruction in the McDaniel et al., 2007 taxonomy).”
Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research (2008, methodology): “Recently, McDaniel et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis on the incremental validity of SJTs.”