Situational Judgment Tests: A Review of Practice and Constructs Assessed

By Michael A. McDaniel, N. Nguyen. 2001

310 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c9d5affd4022ce8ef82b59e1587f32c0c2bfd6e3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Citations in the corpus

The State of Research on Situational Judgment Tests: A Content Analysis and Directions for Future Research (2014, methodology): “These attributes and characteristics were chosen based on narrative summaries of the SJT literature (e.g., Lievens et al., 2008; McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001; Whetzel & McDaniel, 2009), and narrative reviews of other related selection methods (e.g., assessment centers, interviews; Arthur et al., 2000;…”
Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research (2008, background): “Still other researchers posit that SJTs are alternative measures of job knowledge, job experience or interpersonal variables (McDaniel and Nguyen, 2001; Weekley and Jones, 1999).”
SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TESTS, RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS, AND VALIDITY: A META‐ANALYSIS (2007, methodology): “The estimated population correlation is .32 for all SJTs, .35 for knowledge instruction SJTs, and .19 for behavioral tendency SJTs.”
Subgroup Differences in Situational Judgment Test Performance: A Meta-Analysis (2008, unknown): “McDaniel et al. (2001) conducted an extensive literature search and identified data from a wide variety of SJTs useful for their analyses.”
The Influence of Anger, Fear, and Emotion Regulation on Ethical Decision Making (2013, background): “Such simulations predict how well one may perform on a job by presenting hypothetical by realistic scenarios within a job context (McDaniel & Nguyen, 2000).”
The ShadowBox Approach to Cognitive Skills Training (2016, methodology): “Like SJTs, the development of ShadowBox training relies on critical incident elicitation with SMEs.”
Effects of Response Instructions on Faking a Situational Judgment Test (2005, methodology): “McDaniel and Nguyen (2001) speculated that the ‘‘Pick the best and worst answer,’’ i.e., Knowledge response format, would be more faking resistant than the ‘‘Pick the most likely and least likely answer,’’ i.e., Behavioral Tendency format.”
Be Careful What You Ask For: Effects of Response Instructions on the Construct Validity and Reliability of Situational Judgment Tests (2003, background): “One reason for this uncertainty is because research has not systematically examined the manner in which SJTs are written, scored, or structured (McDaniel and Nguyen 2001).”
Situational Judgment: Antecedents and Relationships with Performance (2005, background): “This is supportive of Chan and Schmitt (1997), who argued that SJTs reflect variance from multiple individual difference constructs, and with McDaniel and colleagues, who found SJTs to be moderately correlated with cognitive ability (McDaniel et al, 2001) and personality (McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001).”
Comprehensive meta-analysis of the construct validity of the employment interview (2002, background): “Recently, McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion, and Braverman (2001) and McDaniel and Nguyen (2001) have shown that tacit knowledge tests and situational judgment tests are virtually identical.”
A SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TEST OF PERSONAL INITIATIVE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO PERFORMANCE (2009, background): “The most and least likely ratings were combined for each item resulting in a score that could vary on a 5 point scale between -2 (low initiative) and +2 (high initiative) (McDaniel & Nguyen, 2001).”
Personnel selection. (2008, background): “…predictors, including interview-cognitive ability and interviewpersonality relationships (Cortina et al. 2000; Huffcutt et al. 2001b), cognitive ability-situational judgment test relationships (McDaniel et al. 2001), and personality-situational judgment tests relationships (McDaniel & Nguyen 2001).”
Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research (2009, background): “” This is consistent with the findings of McDaniel and Whetzel (2005) in which they pointed to the multi-faceted nature of SJTs as evidence that SJTs capture some cognitive variance.”