Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T10:24:08.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Hot Mess” of Situational Judgment Test Construct Validity and Other Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

Michael A. McDaniel ,
Sheila K. List  and
Sven Kepes
Michael A. McDaniel*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Virginia Commonwealth University
Sheila K. List
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Virginia Commonwealth University
Sven Kepes
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Virginia Commonwealth University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael A. McDaniel, Virginia Commonwealth University, 301 West Main Street, P.O. Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The construct validity of situational judgment tests (SJTs) is a “hot mess.” The suggestions of Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) concerning a strategy to make the constructs assessed by an SJT more “clear and explicit” (p. 5) are worthy of serious consideration. In this commentary, we highlight two challenges that will likely need to be addressed before one can develop SJTs with clear and explicit constructs. We also offer critiques of four positions presented by Lievens and Motowidlo that are not well supported by evidence.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 47 - 51
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

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. doi:10.1037/a0037674 Google Scholar
Le, H., Schmidt, F. L., Harter, J. K., & Lauver, K. J. (2010). The problem of empirical redundancy of constructs in organizational research: An empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 112–125. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.02.003 Google Scholar
Legree, P. J., Heffner, T. S., Psotka, J., Martin, D. E., & Medsker, G. J. (2003). Traffic crash involvement: Experiential driving knowledge and stressful contextual antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 15–26. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.15 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., Psotka, J., Legree, P. J., Yost, A. P., & Weekley, J. A. (2011). Toward an understanding of situational judgment item validity and group differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 327–336. doi:10.1037/a0021983 Google Scholar
McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2005). Situational judgment test research: Informing the debate on practical intelligence theory. Intelligence, 33, 515–525. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.02.001 Google Scholar
Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar