Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:53:07.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Both General Domain Knowledge and Situation Assessment Are Needed To Better Understand How SJTs Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Jinyan Fan ,
Melissa Stuhlman ,
Lijun Chen  and
Qingxiong Weng
Jinyan Fan*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Auburn University
Melissa Stuhlman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Auburn University
Lijun Chen
Affiliation:
College of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
Qingxiong Weng
Affiliation:
School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, Heifei, Anhui, People's Republic of China
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jinyan Fan, Department of Psychology, Auburn University, 225 Thach Hall, Auburn, AL 36849. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) made a strong case for reconceptualizing situational judgment tests (SJTs) as measures of general domain knowledge, we disagree with their view that the judgment or assessment of the situation itself is not important. We contend that situation assessment is an integral yet ignored factor in SJTs and that both general domain knowledge and situation assessment are needed to better understand how SJTs work.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 43 - 47
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

Jansen, A., Lievens, F., & Kleinmann, M. (2011). Do individual differences in perceiving situational demands moderate the relationship between personality and assessment center dimension ratings? Human Performance, 24, 231–250.Google Scholar
Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., Lievens, F., Kleinmann, M., Brändli, M., Fradfel, L., & König, C. J. (2013). Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the validity of personnel selection procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 326–341.Google Scholar
Kleinmann, M., Ingold, P. V., Lievens, F., Jansen, A., Melchers, K. G., & König, C. J. (2011). A different look at why selection procedures work: The role of candidates’ ability to identify criteria. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 128–146.Google Scholar
Krumm, S., Lievens, F., Hüffmeier, J., Lipnevich, A. A., Bendels, H., & Hertel, G. (2015). How “situational” is judgment in situational judgment tests? Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 399–416.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchers, K. G., Klehe, U., Richter, G. M., Kleinmann, M., König, C. J., & Lievens, F. (2009). “I know what you want to know”: The impact of interviewees’ ability to identify criteria on interview performance and construct-related validity. Human Performance, 22, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., & Beier, M. E. (2010). Differentiating specific job knowledge from implicit trait policies in procedural knowledge measured by a situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 321–333.Google Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., Hooper, A. C., & Jackson, H. L. (2006a). Implicit policies about relations between personality traits and behavioral effectiveness in situational judgment items. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 749–761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Motowidlo, S. J., Hooper, A. C., & Jackson, H. L. (2006b). A theoretical basis for situational judgment tests. In Weekley, J. A. & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 57–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rockstuhl, T., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Lievens, F., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Putting judging situations into situational judgment tests: Evidence from intercultural multimedia SJTs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 464–480.Google Scholar