A theoretical basis for situational judgment tests

Situational Judgment Tests: Theory, Measurement, and Application

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 57-81

  Motowidlo, Stephan J ^a   Hooper, Amy C ^a   Jackson, Hannah L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920813720     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203774878     Document Type: Chapter

References (27)

1. Bomstein, R. F. (2002). A process dissociation approach to objective-projective test score interrelationships. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 47–68.
2. Bomstein, R. F., Rossner, S. C., Hill, E. L., & Stepanian, M. L. (1994). Face validity and fakability of objective and projective measures of dependency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 363–386.
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, 233–253.
5. Clevenger, J., Pereira, G. M., Wiechmann, D., Schmitt, N., & Harvey, V. S. (2001). Incremental validity of situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 410–417.
6. Costa, P. T., & McRae, R. R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
7. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327.
8. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.
9. Hooper, A. C., Jackson, H. L., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2004A, April). Faking on personality-based measures: Sjj's compared to a traditional format. Paper presen ted at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
10. Hooper, A. C., Jackson, H. L., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2004B, August). Situational judgment measures of personality and work-relevant performance. Paper presented at the 112th annual conference of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.
11. Hunter, J. E. (1983). A causal analysis of cognitive ability, job knowledge, job performance, and supervisory ratings. In F. Landy, & S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland, Performance measurement and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131–163.
13. James, L. R., McIntyre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Bowler, J. L., & Mitchell, T. R. (2004). The conditional reasoning measurement system for aggression: An overview. Human Performance, 17, 271–295.
14. Knapp, D. J., Campbell, C. H., Borman, W. C., Pulakos, E. D., & Hanson, M. A. (2001). Performance assessment for a population of jobs. In J. P Campbell & D. J. Knapp, Exploring the limits in personnel selection and classification (pp. 181–235). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Latham, G. P., Saari, L. M., Pursell, E. D., & Campion, M. A. (1980). The situational interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 422–427.
16. 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.
17. McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice and constructs assess International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 103–113.
18. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83.
19. Motowidlo, S. J., Diesch, A. C., & Jackson, H. L. (2003, April). Using the situational judgment format to measure personality characteristics. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
20. 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.
21. Motowidlo, S. J., Hanson, M. A., & Crafts, J. L. (1997). Low fidelity simulations. In L. Whetzel & G. R Wheaton, Applied measurement methods in industrial psychology (pp. 241–260). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
22. Motowidlo, S. J., Jackson, H. L., & Hooper, A. C. (2005). Why some personality traits are correlated with scores on situational judgment tests. Unpublished manuscript.
23. Nguyan, N. T., McDaniel, M. A., & Biderman, M. D. (2002, April). Response instructions in situational judgment tests: Effects on faking and construct validity. Paper presented at the 17th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto.
24. Ployhart, R. E., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Be careful what you ask for: Effects of response instructions on the construct validity and reliability of situational judgment tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 1–16.
25. Waugh, G. W. (2002, April). Developing a situational judgment test. Paper presented at the 17th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario.
26. Weekley, J. A., & Jones, C. (1997). Video-based situational testing. Personnel Psychology, 50, 25–49.
27. Weekley, J.A., & Jones, C. (1999). Further studies of situational tests. Personnel Psychology, 52, 679–700.