Despite their popularity and capacity to predict performance, there is no clear consensus on the internal measurement characteristics of situational judgement tests (SJTs). Contemporary propositions in the literature focus on treating SJTs as methods, as measures of dimensions, or as measures of situational responses. However, empirical evidence relating to the internal structure of SJT scores is lacking. Using generalizability theory, we decomposed multiple sources of variance for three different SJTs used with different samples of job candidates (N1 = 2,320; N2 = 989; N3 = 7,934). Results consistently indicated that (1) the vast majority of reliable observed score variance reflected SJT‐specific candidate main effects, analogous to a general judgement factor, and that (2) the contribution of dimensions and situations to reliable SJT variance was, in relative terms, negligible. These findings do not align neatly with any of the proposals in the contemporary literature; however, they do suggest an internal structure for SJTs. Practitioner points To help optimize reliable variance, overall‐level aggregation should be used when scoring SJTs. The majority of reliable variance in SJTs reflects a general performance factor, relative to variance pertaining to specific dimensions or situations. SJT‐based developmental feedback should be delivered in terms of general SJT performance rather than on performance relating to specific dimensions or situations. Generalizability theory, although underutilized in organizational multifaceted measurement, offers an approach to informing on the psychometric properties of SJTs that is well suited to the complexities of SJT measurement designs.

The use of interim managers by companies is increasing, and reasons for this trend are discussed. A study is reported in which the normative personality make-up of a group of interim managers is compared with that of a general sample of UK managers. Ninety-four interim managers completed the revised PA Preference Inventory (PAPI-N) and the results are compared with those from a general UK managerial sample. Statistically significant differences are reported for 12 out of 20 scales, with nine of the effect sizes > 0.5. Results are also compared with a priori job expert predictions. Of nine predictions that interim managers would differ from the general management norm, seven are consistent with the statistical findings. Practical and methodological implications of the findings, and their relation to thè Big Five', are discussed, together with broader implications for the study of workers in new and emerging forms of employment. The findings are also interpreted in the particular context of interim management roles.

No abstract