Scoring Situational Judgment Tests: Once You Get the Data, Your Troubles Begin

By Mindy E. Bergman, Fritz Drasgow, Michelle A. Donovan, Jaime B. Henning, Suzanne E. Juraska. 2006

124 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f71dbe4e842f2a27451a67733a1c54154f350b5d

How researchers see this paper

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

In Gender Studies

1. Filip Lievens
2. Michael A. McDaniel
3. Greet van Hoye
4. A. Saks

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Michael A. McDaniel
2. Deborah L. Whetzel
3. Filip Lievens
4. Eveline Schollaert
5. Helga Peeters
6. Robert E. Ployhart
7. William I. MacKenzie
8. M. C. Campion

Citations in the corpus

• Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research (2009, background): “In their analysis of various scoring approaches, Bergman et al. (2006) reviewed empirical scoring (in which items or options are scored according to their relationships with a criterion measure) (Hogan, 1994), theoretical scoring (in which items are constructed to reflect theory, or theory can be us”
• Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research (2008, methodology): “SJT developers often aim to gather incidents that deal with specific content domains or constructs related to the job (Bergman et al., 2006).”