SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TESTS: CONSTRUCTS ASSESSED AND A META-ANALYSIS OF THEIR CRITERION-RELATED VALIDITIES

• Published in: Personnel psychology Vol. 63; no. 1; pp. 83 - 117
• Main Authors: CHRISTIAN, MICHAEL S., EDWARDS, BRYAN D., BRADLEY, JILL C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Malden, USA Blackwell Publishing Inc 01.03.2010; Blackwell Publishing Ltd
• Subjects: Ability tests; Cognitive ability; Cognitive Tests; Construct Validity; Evaluative Thinking; Interpersonal Competence; Job performance; Measurement Techniques; Meta Analysis; Personnel selection; Predictive Validity; Psychometrics; Researchers; Social skills; Systematic review; Test Content; Validation studies; Validity; Video Technology
• ISSN: 0031-5826; 1744-6570
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01163.x

Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are a measurement method that may be designed to assess a variety of constructs. Nevertheless, many studies fail to report the constructs measured by the situational judgment tests in the extant literature. Consequently, a construct‐level focus in the situational judgment test literature is lacking, and researchers and practitioners know little about the specific constructs typically measured. Our objective was to extend the efforts of previous researchers (e.g., McDaniel, Hartman, Whetzel, & Grubb, 2007; McDaniel & Ngyuen, 2001; Schmitt & Chan, 2006) by highlighting the need for a construct focus in situational judgment test research. We identified and classified the construct domains assessed by situational judgment tests in the literature into a content‐based typology. We then conducted a meta‐analysis to determine the criterion‐related validity of each construct domain and to test for moderators. We found that situational judgment tests most often assess leadership and interpersonal skills and those situational judgment tests measuring teamwork skills and leadership have relatively high validities for overall job performance. Although based on a small number of studies, we found evidence that (a) matching the predictor constructs with criterion facets improved criterion‐related validity; and (b) video‐based situational judgment tests tended to have stronger criterion‐related validity than pencil‐and‐paper situational judgment tests, holding constructs constant. Implications for practice and research are discussed.