A situational judgement test (SJT), also known as a situational stress test (SStT) or situational stress inventory (SSI), is a type of psychological test that presents the test-taker with realistic, hypothetical scenarios. The test-taker is asked to identify the most appropriate response or to rank the responses in order of effectiveness.[1][2] SJTs can be administered through various modalities, such as booklets, films, or audio recordings.[3] These tests represent a distinct psychometric approach compared to the traditional knowledge-based multiple-choice items[2][4] and are frequently utilized in industrial-organizational psychology applications, such as personnel selection.
SJTs are designed to determine behavioral tendencies by assessing how an individual might behave in specific situations. They also evaluate knowledge instruction by assessing the effectiveness of potential responses. Moreover, situational judgment tests may reinforce the status quo within an organization.[5]
Unlike most psychological tests, SJTs are not typically acquired off-the-shelf; instead, they are bespoke tools, tailored to suit specific role requirements.[2] This is because SJTs are not defined by their content but by their method of design.
Developing a situational judgement test
Developing a situational judgement test begins with conducting a job analysis that includes collecting critical incidents. These critical incidents are used to develop different situations where the judgement of the prospective new hire would need to make a decision. Once these situations are developed, subject matter experts (excellent employees) are asked to suggest effective and less effective solutions to the situation. Then a different group of subject matter experts rate these responses from best to worst and the test is scored with the highest ranked options giving the respondent the higher score (or lower if the test is reverse scored).[6]
Validity
The validity of the test corresponds to the types of questions that are being asked. Knowledge instruction questions correlate more highly with general mental ability while behavioral tendency questions correlate more highly with personality.[5]
Key results from a study show that knowledge about interpersonal behavior measured with situational judgement tests was valid for internships (7 years later) as well as job performance (9 years later). Also, students' knowledge of interpersonal behavior showed progressive validity over cognitive factors for predicting academic and post academic success. This study was also the first study to show evidence of the predictive long-term power of interpersonal skill assessed though situational judgement tests.[7]
There are many problems within scoring SJTs. "Attempts to address this issue include expert-novice differences, where an item is scored in the direction favoring the experts after the average ratings of experts and novices on each item are compared; expert judgement, where a team of experts decides the best answer to each question; target scoring, where the test author determines the correct answer; and consensual scoring, where a score is allocated to each option according to the percentage of people choosing that option."[8]
History
The situational judgement test has been around for over fifty years. The first two that were documented were the How supervise and the Cardall Practical Judgement Test. In 1958 the Supervisory Practice Test came about by Bruce and Learner.[9] The Supervisory Practice Test was to point out whether or not supervisors could handle certain situations on the job. This test is said to effectively identify who could and could not be a supervisor.[9] The situational judgement test did not really take off and become a great use in the employment field until the early 1990s.[9]
Situational Judgement Tests then went on to be used in World War II by psychologists in the US military.[4] "In the 1950s and 60s, their use was extended to predict, as well as assess, managerial success."[10]
Today, SJTs are used in many organizations,[which?] are promoted by various consulting firms,[which?] and are researched by many. However, their use has been criticized in admissions screening due to bias against lower income individuals[11] and male applicants.[12]
Tests to measure individual adaptability in applied settings
A thesis submitted to George Mason University in 2010 by Adam M. Grim created a study to measure individual adaptability in applied settings. An Adaptability Situational Judgement Test (ASJT) was designed to provide a practical and valid selection and assessment instrument that had incremental validity beyond the Big Five personality traits and cognitive ability in predicting supervisor ratings of adaptability.[13] "The research contributes to the selection and adaptive performance literatures by demonstrating that it is possible to use a situational judgement test to measure individual adaptability in both military and non-military applied settings."[13] ASJT had similar relationships with all variables of interest in both samples, thus providing support for the generalizability of the measure to both military and business settings. Practical implications and recommendations for future refinements of ASJT are discussed.[13] With this ASJT did not have differential validity and provides a selection instrument that would not cause adverse impact or be subject to legal challenge because of predictive bias.[13] For this study there were both business and military setting scenarios which subjects would read and indicate how likely they were to do the list of behaviors related to that scenario.[13]
Multiple-choice examples
Consist of either taking the test on paper or written out examples online. The online version offers a few advantages such as, faster results. It is often the case that Situational Judgement Test have multiple correct answers even though an answer might be more preferred by the hiring organization.[5]
You are the leader of a manufacturing team that works with heavy machinery. One of your productions operators tells you that one machine in the work area is suddenly malfunctioning and may endanger the welfare of your work team. Rank order the following possible courses of action to effectively address this problem. from most desirable to least desirable. 1. Call a meeting of your team members to discuss the problem. 2. Report the problem to the Director of Safety 3. shut off the machine immediately. 4. Individually ask other production operators about problems with their machines. 5.evacuate your team from the production facility.[5] Other typical examples can be found here.[14]
Video-based examples
Consists of videos that contain different scenarios that the employee may face. Scenarios for this section can be found on YouTube.com.
Scenarios are in many different styles such as:
Animated people and situations.
The boss of the company could be recorded asking the question.
The answering process can be different for each test.
The correct answer could be given.
The individual could be ask to give the most reasonable answer.
The individual is asked to explain what they were to do if they were in that situation.
SJTs offer several advantages over other psychometric assessments. One significant benefit is their reduced levels of adverse impact by gender and ethnicity[15] compared to cognitive ability tests.[2][16] SJTs use measures that directly assess job-relevant behaviors, enhancing their applicability in real-world settings.[2]
Administration of SJTs can be conducted in bulk, either via traditional pen-and-paper methods or online platforms, offering flexibility in large-scale testing.[2] The design process of SJTs results in content that is more relevant than other assessment types,[16][17] leading to greater acceptance and engagement from candidates.[2] Unlike cognitive ability tests, the scenarios in SJTs are based on real incidents, making them more relatable and practical.
Practice is unlikely to significantly enhance candidate performance in SJTs because the answers cannot be logically deduced; what is appropriate in one organizational context may be inappropriate in another.[2] SJTs are capable of assessing a variety of constructs, including problem-solving, decision-making, and interpersonal skills.[2] This contrasts with traditional psychometric tests, which often fail to consider the interaction between ability, personality, and other traits.[16]
Moreover, conscientiousness can be integrated into SJTs as a major factor of individual differences.[18] When used in combination with knowledge-based tests, SJTs provide a more comprehensive evaluation of a candidate's aptitude for specific job roles.[19]
Company use
Companies using SJTs report the following anecdotal evidence supporting the use of SJT. Note: these reports are not supported by peer-reviewed research.
They are relatively easy and cost-effective to develop, administer and score[20]
There has been more favorable applicant reactions to this test than to general mental ability tests.
Pre-hiring use
SJTs are a popular tool that employers use during the hiring process to weed out potential hires. Some professions that almost always require SJT exams are administrative, management, firefighters, customer service, nursing, call centers, and police officers. It's important to note that each profession may have its own situational judgement test specific to that particular field. However, generally, most SJTs include various question types and do not have a time limit.[21]
One of the most popular question types on SJTs are scenarios. Scenarios are job-related, realistic, hypothetical situations. As the scenarios presented on SJTs always ask for a resolution for a given conflict, candidates will be asked to choose a preferred method of action out of several possible options. The conflict/scenario may involve supervisor-subordinate relationships, stress and disagreement between colleagues, etc. The situations described may vary according to the role one is applying for. If scenarios are presented, candidates can expect to encounter 25–50 questions.[21]
Other SJT test question types are multiple-choice, most-least or best/worst answer tables (where more than one option must be chosen on a certain scale), ranking and rating, or short video scenes (simulates the situation being asked about).[21]
SJTs have faced several criticisms, particularly regarding their use in admissions screening, such as the multiple mini-interview, which has been shown to cause gender[12] and socioeconomic bias.[11] The brevity of scenarios in many SJTs can prevent candidates from becoming fully immersed, thereby reducing the intended realism and potentially affecting the quality and depth of assessment.[16]
Moreover, SJT responses can sometimes be transparent, merely reflecting best practice knowledge without effectively differentiating between candidates' work-related performance.[16] The response formats in some SJTs may not offer a comprehensive range of responses, forcing candidates to choose actions that do not accurately reflect their behavior. This limitation can be frustrating for candidates and may impact the validity of the measures.[22][23][24]
There are ongoing debates about the adaptability of SJTs and their validity in measuring specific constructs, such as job knowledge, versus a broader range of constructs like cognitive ability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, or emotional stability.[25] SJTs are designed to assess multiple constructs simultaneously, making it difficult to isolate and measure individual constructs. Consequently, if one construct is of particular interest, other measures might be more suitable.[26]
Additionally, the multi-dimensional nature of SJTs poses challenges in assessing reliability through standard measures.[27] While SJTs might reduce certain kinds of visual bias, they can reinforce others, potentially promoting uniform work and cultural values. Furthermore, the ability to prepare for SJTs may reinforce socioeconomic advantages and benefit those with social links to the organization.[28]
1 2 3 Swander, Carl (3 May 2001). Video-based Situational Judgement Test Characteristics: Multidimensionality at the Item Level and Impact of Situational Variables (PhD in Psychology thesis). pp.3–5.
↑ Chan, D.; Schmitt, N. (2005). "An agenda for future research on applicants' reactions to selection procedures: A construct-orientated approach". International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 12 (1–2): 9–23. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075x.2004.00260.x.
↑ Ployhart, R.E.; Harold, C.M. (2004). "The applicant attribution-reaction theory (AART): An integrative approach of applicant attributional processing". International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 12 (1–2): 84–98. doi:10.1111/j.0965-075x.2004.00266.x.
↑ Schmit, M.J.; Ryan, A.M. (1992). "Test-taking dispositions: A missing link?". Journal of Applied Psychology. 77 (5): 629–637. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.629.
↑ McDaniel, M.A.; Morgeson, F.P.; Finnegan, E.B.; Campion, M.A.; Braverman, E.P. (2001). "Use of situational judgement tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature". Journal of Applied Psychology. 86 (730–740): 730–40. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.730. PMID11519656.
↑ McDaniel, M.A.; Morgeson, F.P.; Finnegan, E.B.; Campion, M.A.; Braverman, E.P. (2001). "Use of situational judgement tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature". Journal of Applied Psychology. 86 (4): 730–740. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.730. PMID11519656.
↑ McDaniel, M.A. & Whetzel, D.L. (2007). Situational Judgement Tests. In D.L. Whetzel & G.R. Wheaton (Eds). Applied measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management. Erlbaum. 235-258.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is defined as the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions. People with high emotional intelligence can recognize their own emotions and those of others, use emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discern between different feelings and label them appropriately, and adjust emotions to adapt to environments.
An interview is a structured conversation where one participant asks questions, and the other provides answers. In common parlance, the word "interview" refers to a one-on-one conversation between an interviewer and an interviewee. The interviewer asks questions to which the interviewee responds, usually providing information. That information may be used or provided to other audiences immediately or later. This feature is common to many types of interviews – a job interview or interview with a witness to an event may have no other audience present at the time, but the answers will be later provided to others in the employment or investigative process. An interview may also transfer information in both directions.
A personality test is a method of assessing human personality constructs. Most personality assessment instruments are in fact introspective self-report questionnaire measures or reports from life records (L-data) such as rating scales. Attempts to construct actual performance tests of personality have been very limited even though Raymond Cattell with his colleague Frank Warburton compiled a list of over 2000 separate objective tests that could be used in constructing objective personality tests. One exception, however, was the Objective-Analytic Test Battery, a performance test designed to quantitatively measure 10 factor-analytically discerned personality trait dimensions. A major problem with both L-data and Q-data methods is that because of item transparency, rating scales, and self-report questionnaires are highly susceptible to motivational and response distortion ranging from lack of adequate self-insight to downright dissimulation depending on the reason/motivation for the assessment being undertaken.
Personnel selection is the methodical process used to hire individuals. Although the term can apply to all aspects of the process the most common meaning focuses on the selection of workers. In this respect, selected prospects are separated from rejected applicants with the intention of choosing the person who will be the most successful and make the most valuable contributions to the organization. Its effect on the group is discerned when the selected accomplish their desired impact to the group, through achievement or tenure. The procedure of selection takes after strategy to gather data around a person so as to figure out whether that individual ought to be utilized. The strategies used must be in compliance with the various laws in respect to work force selection.
A job interview is an interview consisting of a conversation between a job applicant and a representative of an employer which is conducted to assess whether the applicant should be hired. Interviews are one of the most common methods of employee selection. Interviews vary in the extent to which the questions are structured, from an unstructured and informal conversation to a structured interview in which an applicant is asked a predetermined list of questions in a specified order; structured interviews are usually more accurate predictors of which applicants will make suitable employees, according to research studies.
Cognitive tests are assessments of the cognitive capabilities of humans and other animals. Tests administered to humans include various forms of IQ tests; those administered to animals include the mirror test and the T maze test. Such testing is used in psychology and psychometrics, as well as other fields studying human and animal intelligence.
The Wonderlic Contemporary Cognitive Ability Test is an assessment used to measure the cognitive ability and problem-solving aptitude of prospective employees for a range of occupations. The test was created in 1939 by Eldon F. Wonderlic. It consists of 50 multiple choice questions to be answered in 12 minutes. The score is calculated as the number of correct answers given in the allotted time, and a score of 20 is intended to indicate average intelligence.
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), developed by Leslie Morey, is a self-report 344-item personality test that assesses a respondent's personality and psychopathology. Each item is a statement about the respondent that the respondent rates with a 4-point scale. It is used in various contexts, including psychotherapy, crisis/evaluation, forensic, personnel selection, pain/medical, and child custody assessment. The test construction strategy for the PAI was primarily deductive and rational. It shows good convergent validity with other personality tests, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.
The Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI) is a standardized personality test of adult pathology and personality. The IPI is utilized by public safety services to assess the fit of possible employees in public safety and law enforcement positions. The assessment can also indicate deviant behavior patterns.
The University Clinical Aptitude Test (UCAT) is an admissions test used in the selection process by a consortium of universities in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand for their medical and dental degree programmes. UCAT is needed, except very few universities, for admission into undergraduate medical degrees in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and UK. Launched in 2006 as the UK Clinical Aptitude Test (UKCAT), it was renamed in 2019 following the launch of the test in Australia and New Zealand.
Biodata is the shortened form for biographical data.
Employment testing is the practice of administering written, oral, or other tests as a means of determining the suitability or desirability of a job applicant. The premise is that if scores on a test correlate with job performance, then it is economically useful for the employer to select employees based on scores from that test.
The distinction between typical and maximum performance is one way to classify job performance in industrial/organizational psychology. Typical performance is how an employee performs on a regular basis, while maximum performance is how one performs when exerting as much effort as possible.
The Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) is a licensing examination developed by the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) that is used in most U.S. states and Canadian provinces.
In recruitment, the multiple mini-interview (MMI) is an interview format that uses many short independent assessments, typically in a timed circuit, to obtain an aggregate score of each candidate's soft skills. In 2001, the McMaster University Medical School began developing the MMI system, to address two widely recognized problems. First, it has been shown that traditional interview formats or simulations of educational situations do not accurately predict performance in medical school. Secondly, when a licensing or regulatory body reviews the performance of a physician subsequent to patient complaints, the most frequent issues of concern are those of the non-cognitive skills, such as interpersonal skills, professionalism and ethical/moral judgment. Since its formal introduction at McMaster University Medical School in 2004, it has been adopted by medical, dental, pharmacy, and veterinary schools around the world.
An assessment day is usually used in the context of recruitment. On this day, a group of applicants who have applied for a particular role are invited to an assessment centre, where a combination of selection techniques are used by the employers to measure the suitability of an individual for the job role. These selection technique usually include exercises such as presentation, group exercise, one to one Interview, role play, psychometric test etc. Most large organisations like banks, audit and IT firms use assessment days to recruit the fresh talent in their graduate programmes. With an increase of popularity of assessment days, several training institutes have been formed that prepare candidates for assessment days, for example, Green Turn is a famous institute that prepares candidates for assessment days of big 4 accountancy firms.
Individual psychological assessment (IPA) is a tool used by organizations to make decisions on employment. IPA allows employers to evaluate and maintain potential candidates for hiring, promotion, and development by using a series of job analysis instruments such as position analysis questionnaires (PAQ), occupational analysis inventory (OAI), and functional job analysis (FJA). These instruments allow the assessor to develop valid measures of intelligence, personality tests, and a range of other factors as means to determine selection and promotion decisions. Personality and cognitive ability are good predictors of performance. Emotional Intelligence helps individuals navigate through challenging organizational and interpersonal encounters. Since individual differences have a long history in explaining human behavior and the different ways in which individuals respond to similar events and circumstances, these factors allow the organization to determine if an applicant has the competence to effectively and successfully do the work that the job requires. These assessments are administered throughout organizations in different forms, but they share one common goal in the selection process, and that is the right candidate for the job.
A pre-hire assessment is a test or questionnaire that candidates complete as part of the job application process. The use of a valid and expert assessment is an effective way to determine which applicants are the most qualified for a specific job based on their strengths and preferences. Employers typically use the results to determine how well each candidate's strengths and preferences match the job requirements.
Adaptive performance in the work environment refers to adjusting to and understanding change in the workplace. An employee who is versatile is valued and important in the success of an organization. Employers seek employees with high adaptability, due to the positive outcomes that follow, such as excellent work performance, work attitude, and ability to handle stress. Employees, who display high adaptive performance in an organization, tend to have more advantages in career opportunities unlike employees who are not adaptable to change. In previous literature, Pulakos and colleagues established eight dimensions of adaptive performance.
Trait activation theory is based on a specific model of job performance, and can be considered an elaborated or extended view of personality-job fit. Specifically, it is how an individual expresses their traits when exposed to situational cues related to those traits. These situational cues may stem from organization, social, and/or task cues. These cues can activate personality traits that are related to job tasks and organizational expectations that the organization values. These cues may also elicit trait-related behaviors that are not directly related to job performance.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
