Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:40:07.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scoring SJTs for Traits and Situational Effectiveness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Robert J. Harvey
Robert J. Harvey*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert J. Harvey, Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, 121 Williams Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061. E-mail: harveyrj@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) addressed three of the most important unanswered questions regarding situational judgment tests (SJTs): (a) Should we view them as tests that can assess relatively generic constructs that predict performance across settings, (b) what constructs can they assess, and (c) how should they be scored? They suggested fundamentally changing the SJT development process by targeting the specific constructs we measure, using scoring systems that address both the targeted traits and their situational effectiveness, examining construct validity, and evaluating the criterion-related validity of SJT traits (Lievens & Motowidlo, pp. 11–12). These recommendations are highly significant on both practical and conceptual grounds.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 63 - 71
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.)

References

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Mervielde, I., Deary, I., De Fruyt, F., & Ostendorf, F. (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. J. (2013, April). Cognitive- and personality-based discriminant validity concerns regarding Stemler-Sternberg SJTs. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. J. (2015a, April). Deriving target personality profiles empirically: Not socially desirable, with situational moderation. In Harvey, R. J. (Chair), Examining alternatives to criterion-related validity studies when setting worker requirements. Symposium presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. J. (2015b). Targeted constructs and standardized scoring of situational judgment tests: Examining Stemler-Sternberg and projective SJT formats. Unpublished manuscript.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
McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice and constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 103–113.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. New York, NY: Pearson.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. S., Donoghue, J. R., & Laughlin, J. E. (2000). A generalized item response theory model for unfolding unidimensional polytomous responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 3–32.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (2006). Situational judgment tests: Method or construct? In Weekley, J. A. & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 135–155). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stemler, S. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Using situational judgment tests to measure practical intelligence. In Weekley, J. A. & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 107–131). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Whitenack, D. A., & Harvey, R. J. (2015, April). Within-title heterogeneity in rationally derived target profiles for jobs. In Harvey, R. J. (Chair), Examining alternatives to criterion-related validity studies when setting worker requirements. Symposium presented at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar