Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: A comparison in terms of predictive validity

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 91, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 1181-1188

  Lievens, Filip ^a   Sackett, Paul R ^b  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Predictive validity; Situational judgment test; Video

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; MALE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; VALIDATION STUDY; VIDEORECORDING;

COGNITION; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; VIDEOTAPE RECORDING;

EID: 33748650298     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1181     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Archer, D., & Akert, R. M. (1980). The encoding of meaning: A test of three theories of social interaction. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 393-419.
2. Burnett, J. R., Fan, C. Motowidlo, S. J., & DeGroot, T. (1998). Interview notes and validity. Personnel Psychology, 51, 375-396.
3. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143-159.
4. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2002). Situational judgment and job performance. Human Performance, 15, 233-254.
5. Clause, C. C., Mullins, M. E., Nee, M. T., Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1998). Parallel test form development: A procedure for alternative predictors and an example. Personnel Psychology, 51, 193-208.
6. Cullen, M. J., Hardison, C. M., & Sackett, P. R. (2004). Using SAT-grade and ability-job performance relationships to test predictions derived from stereotype threat theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 220-230.
7. DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Why visual and vocal interview cues can affect interviewers' judgments and predict job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 986-993.
8. Funke, U., & Schuler, H. (1998). Validity of stimulus and response components in a video test of social competence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 115-123.
9. Gesn, P. R., & Ickes, W. (1999). The development of meaning contexts for emphatic accuracy: Channel and sequence effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 746-761.
10. Goldstein, H. W., Yusko, K. P., Braverman, E. P., Smith, D. B., & Chung. B. (1998). The role of cognitive ability in the subgroup differences and incremental validity of assessment center exercises. Personnel Psychology, 51, 357-374.
11. Hedlund, J., Plamondon, K., Wilt, J., Nebel, K., Ashford, S., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001, April). Practical intelligence for business: Going beyond the GMAT. In J. Cortina (Chair), Out with the old, in with the new: Looking above and beyond what we know about cognitive predictors. Symposium presented at the 16th Annual Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
12. Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162-181.
13. McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 730-740.
14. McHenry, J. J., & Schmitt, N. (1994). Multimedia testing. In M. G. Rumsey & C. B. Walker (Eds.), Personnel selection and classification (pp. 193-232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640-647.
16. Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Multimedia situational judgment tests: The medium creates the message. In J. A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests (pp. 253-278). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17. Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., Earles, J. A., & Albert, W. (1994). Sign changes when correcting for restriction of range: A note on Pearson's and Lawley's selection formulas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 298-301.
18. Richman-Hirsch, W. L., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Examining the impact of administration medium on examinee perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 880-887.
19. Sackett, P. R., & Yang, H. (2000). Correction for range restriction: An expanded typology. Journal, of Applied, Psychology, 85, 112-118.
20. Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (2006). Situational judgment tests: Method or construct. In,T. A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests (pp. 135-155). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-76.
22. Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection. New York: Wiley.
23. Weekley, J. A., & Jones, C. (1997). Video-based situaliunal testing. Personnel Psychology, 50, 25-49.
24. Weekley, J. A., Ployhart, R. E., & Holtz, B. C. (2006). On the development of situational judgment tests: Issues in item development, scaling, and scoring. In J. A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests (pp. 157-182). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.