Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:45:50.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unintended Consequences: Narrowing SJT Usage and Losing Credibility With Applicants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Amy E. Crook
Amy E. Crook*
Affiliation:
Jack C. Massey College of Business, Belmont University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amy E. Crook, Jack C. Massey College of Business, Belmont University, 1900 Belmont Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37212. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) present a convincing case for why situational judgment tests (SJTs) should be developed specifically to measure general domain knowledge, but I have two concerns regarding the use of SJTs in psychological research and practical settings if the reconceptualization of SJTs offered by the authors is adopted to the exclusion of other current approaches. The first concerns abandoning SJTs as a helpful job analysis tool if we encourage intentional conflation of trait expression with job effectiveness in the development of SJT items. Second, diluting the situational component of SJTs may reduce their acceptance as selection tools by job applicants and practitioners in organizations.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 59 - 63
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

Crook, A. E. (2012). Training interpersonal skills for interviews: The value of behavioral models and the role of personality (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession No. 3534247)Google Scholar
Crook, A. E. (2014, April). Comparing single-response and multiple-response SJTs. In Reeder, M. C. & Golubovich, J. (Chairs), Situational judgment test design and measurement informed by psychological theory. Symposium conducted at the 30th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Crook, A. E., & Beier, M. E. (2015). Using SJTs to understand relations between prosocial knowledge, coping with stress, and OCBs. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Crook, A. E., Beier, M. E., Cox, C. B., Kell, H. J., Hanks, A. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2011). Measuring relationships between personality, knowledge, and performance using single‐response situational judgment tests. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lievens, F., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2016). Situational judgment tests: From measures of situational judgment to measures of general domain knowledge. Industrial & Organizational Psychology: Perspectives and Practice, 9, 3–22.Google Scholar
Lievens, F., Peeters, H., & Schollaert, E. (2008). Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research. Personnel Review, 37, 426–441.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. M., Van Iddekinge, C. H., Lievens, F., Kung, M., Sinar, E. F., & Campion, M. A. (2013). Do candidate reactions relate to job performance or affect criterion-related validity? A multistudy investigation of relations among reactions, selection test scores, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 701–719.Google Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., Ghosh, K., Mendoza, A. M., Buchanen, A. E., & Lerma, M. N. (2015). A context-independent situational judgment test to measure prosocial implicit trait policy. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Salgado, J. F., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2001). Predictors used for personnel selection: An overview of constructs, methods, and techniques. In Anderson, N. R., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, & organizational psychology (pp. 165–199). London, UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whetzel, D. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). Situational judgment tests: An overview of current research. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 188–202.Google Scholar