Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-21T11:54:27.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Further Considerations in SJT Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Matthew J. Borneman
Matthew J. Borneman*
Affiliation:
Ergometrics & Applied Personnel Research, Inc., Lynnwood, Washington
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew J. Borneman, Ergometrics & Applied Personnel Research, Inc., 18720 33rd Avenue West, Lynnwood, WA 98037. E-mail: matthewb@ergometrics.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The situational judgment test (SJT) development procedures outlined by the authors of the focal piece (Lievens & Motowidlo, 2016) provide an excellent framework to design SJTs that help answer fundamental questions about what SJTs measure and why they work. This article expands on this framework to explore further some of the issues faced in the development of SJTs. These issues include the implied assumption of linearity between general domain knowledge and effectiveness, whether the SJT measures a single construct or multiple constructs, and when a more criterion-centered approach to SJT development might be preferred.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 55 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., & Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational judgment tests: Constructs assessed and a meta-analysis of their criterion-related validities. Personnel Psychology, 63, 83–117.Google Scholar
Connelly, B. S., Ones, D. S., Davies, S. E., & Birkland, A. (2014). Opening up openness: A theoretical sort following critical incidents methodology and a meta-analytic investigation of the trait family measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96 (1), 17–28.Google Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., & Tellegen, A. (2009). A conceptual and empirical reexamination of the measurement of social desirability of items: Implications for detecting desirable response style and scale development. Personnel Psychology, 62, 201–228.Google Scholar
Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (1), 113–133. doi:10.1037/a0021016 Google Scholar
Lievens, F., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2016). Situational judgment tests: From measures of situational judgment to measures of general domain knowledge. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9, 3–22.Google Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., Hooper, A. C., & Jackson, H. L. (2006). A theoretical basis for situational judgment tests. In Weekley, J. A. & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, application (pp. 57–81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar