SITUATIONAL JUDGMENT TESTS, RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS, AND VALIDITY: A META‐ANALYSIS
verifiedthin profile · Personnel Psychology · 2007
McDANIEL, MICHAEL A.; HARTMAN, NATHAN S.; WHETZEL, DEBORAH L.; GRUBB, W. LEE
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
situational judgment tests → quality of hire
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
Situational judgment tests (SJTs) are personnel selection instruments that present job applicants with work‐related situations and possible responses to the situations. There are typically 2 types of instructions: behavioral tendency and knowledge. Behavioral tendency instructions ask respondents to identify how they would likely behave in a given situation. Knowledge instructions ask respondents to evaluate the effectiveness of possible responses to a given situation. Results showed that response instructions influenced the constructs measured by the tests. Tests with knowledge instructions had higher correlations with cognitive ability. Tests with behavioral tendency instructions showed higher correlations with personality constructs. Results also showed that response instructions had little moderating effect on criterion‐related validity. Supplemental analyses showed that the moderating effect of response instructions on construct validity was not due to systematic differences in item content. SJTs have incremental validity over cognitive ability, the Big 5, and over a composite of cognitive ability and the Big 5.
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
No open-access quotations have been captured yet.
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.