Situation assessment as an ignored factor in the behavioral consistency paradigm underlying the validity of personnel selection procedures.

Jansen, Anne; Melchers, Klaus G.; Lievens, Filip; Kleinmann, Martin; Brändli, M.; Fraefel, Laura; König, Cornelius J.

doi:10.1037/a0031257

Cited by 84 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 89 publications

(129 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In turn, this might lead to a higher correlation with cognitive ability (as more cognitive resources are required to come up with a solution) and a higher correlation with social skills (as one needs the ability to infer the situational cues). Consistent with research on ambiguous demands in assessment centers (Jansen et al, 2013), SJTs without situation descriptions might therefore produce good criterion-related validities especially for jobs with ill-defined demands. 3 Second, it is important to examine to what extent the positive applicant reactions toward SJTs are connected to their level of contextualization.…”

Section: Key Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 68%

How “situational” is judgment in situational judgment tests?

Krumm¹,

Lievens²,

Hüffmeier³

et al. 2015

Journal of Applied Psychology

Self Cite

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas situational judgment tests (SJTs) have traditionally been conceptualized as low-fidelity simulations with an emphasis on contextualized situation descriptions and context-dependent knowledge, a recent perspective views SJTs as measures of more general domain (context-independent) knowledge. In the current research, we contrasted these 2 perspectives in 3 studies by removing the situation descriptions (i.e., item stems) from SJTs. Across studies, the traditional contextualized SJT perspective was not supported for between 43% and 71% of the items because it did not make a significant difference whether the situation description was included or not for these items. These results were replicated across construct domains, samples, and response instructions. However, there was initial evidence that judgment in SJTs was more situational when (a) items measured job knowledge and skills and (b) response options denoted context-specific rules of action. Verbal protocol analyses confirmed that high scorers on SJTs without situation descriptions relied upon general rules about the effectiveness of the responses. Implications for SJT theory, research, and design are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Key Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 68%

How “situational” is judgment in situational judgment tests?

Krumm¹,

Lievens²,

Hüffmeier³

et al. 2015

Journal of Applied Psychology

Self Cite

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ability to evaluate situational demands predicts performance across assessment types, including structured interviews (Melchers, Bösser, Hartstein, & Kleinmann, 2012) and assessment centers (Jansen et al, 2013). Further, the ability to identify criteria for performance evaluation (broadly conceptualized as situational cues) has been posited as a key explanation of the criterion-related validity for selection assessments (Kleinmann et al, 2011).…”

Section: Whereas Lievens and Motowidlomentioning

confidence: 99%

In Defense of the Situation: An Interactionist Explanation for Performance on Situational Judgment Tests

Harris

Siedor

Fan

et al. 2016

Ind. Organ. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) propose a model of situational judgment test (SJT) performance that removes the "situation" in favor of conceptualizing SJTs as a measure of general domain knowledge, we argue that the expression of general domain knowledge is in fact contingent on situational judgment. As we explain, the evidence cited by Lievens and Motowidlo against a situational component does not inherently exclude the importance of situations from SJTs and does overlook the strong support for a person-situation interaction explanation of behavior. Based on the interactionist literature-in particular, the trait activation theory (TAT) and situational strength literatures-we propose a model that both maintains the key pathways and definitions posited by Lievens and Motowidlo and integrates the situational component of SJTs.Interactionist explanations of work behavior have received increasing attention and support in the employee selection literature and stem from a long history of research on person-situation models of personality (e.g., Mischel, 1968). The ability to evaluate situational demands predicts performance across assessment types, including structured interviews (Melchers, Bösser, Hartstein, & Kleinmann, 2012) and assessment centers (Jansen et al., 2013). Further, the ability to identify criteria for performance evaluation (broadly conceptualized as situational cues) has been posited as a key explanation of the criterion-related validity for selection assessments (Kleinmann et al., 2011). Given the evidence supporting a person-situation interaction account of performance in assessment centers and structured

show abstract

“…In line with this, measures of situational judgment (or of situation assessment or of individuals' ability to identify evaluative criteria, ATIC) have been found to be related to performance in selection interviews (e.g., Melchers et al, 2009), ACs (e.g., Jansen et al, 2013), and other selection simulations (e.g., Oostrom, Melchers, Ingold, & Kleinmann, in press). In the present context, situational interviews are particularly relevant, because they are similar to SJTs in many regards: They describe hypothetical work-related situations and ask interviewees what they would do in these situations (Maurer, Sue-Chan, & Latham, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%