SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TESTS: CONSTRUCTS ASSESSED AND A META‐ANALYSIS OF THEIR CRITERION‐RELATED VALIDITIES

315 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Situational Judgment Tests: From Measures of Situational Judgment to Measures of General Domain Knowledge (2015, background): “Overall, it was found that the criterion-related validity of SJT scores increased when SJTs were based on a careful job analysis, on less detailed questions, and on a video-based presentation format (Christian et al., 2010; McDaniel et al., 2001). A third stream of research followed up on the sugges”
The State of Research on Situational Judgment Tests: A Content Analysis and Directions for Future Research (2014, methodology): “To describe and analyze the myriad of constructs assessed by SJTs in the published literature, we adopted the typology presented by Christian et al. (2010) as it offers a relatively recent and comprehensive typology for us to draw from. Accordingly, constructs were assigned using their procedure (i.”
WORK ENGAGEMENT: A QUANTITATIVE REVIEW AND TEST OF ITS RELATIONS WITH TASK AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE (2011, methodology): “For missing interrater reliability values, we used values from Christian et al. (2010); for task performance, .59, and for contextual performance, .51.”