Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature.
Abstract
Although situational judgment tests have a long history in the psychological assessment literature and continue to be frequently used in employment contexts, there has been virtually no summarization of this literature. The purpose of this article is to review the history of such tests and present the results of a meta-analysis on criterion-related and construct validity. On the basis of 102 coefficients and 10,640 people, situational judgment tests showed useful levels of validity (rho = .34) that were generalizable. A review of 79 correlations between situational judgment tests and general cognitive ability involving 16,984 people indicated that situational judgment tests typically evidence relationships with cognitive ability (rho = .46). On the basis of the literature review and meta-analytic findings, implications for the continued use of situational judgment tests are discussed, particularly in terms of recent investigations into tacit knowledge.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A meta-analysis generated an adjusted correlation of .34 between SJTs and job performance, supporting criterion-related validity of SJTs.
“McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion, and Braverman's (2001) meta-analysis generated an adjusted correlation of .34 between SJTs and job performance, supporting criterion-related validity of SJTs.”
From Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Existing Research and Future Directions (2016) · cites this paper as McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion, and Braverman's (2001)
Cites
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Roth, A., Ogrin, S., & Schmitz, B. (2016) · Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability · doi:10.1007/s11092-015-9229-2 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Assessing Intercultural Competence in Higher Education: Existing Research and Future Directions
Griffith, R. L., Wolfeld, L., Armon, B. K., Rios, J., & Liu, O. L. (2016) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/ets2.12112 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Salgado, J. F., & Táuriz, G. (2014) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2012.716198 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Empowering Leadership and Effective Collaboration in Geographically Dispersed Teams
Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2016) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12108 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
VAN IDDEKINGE, C. H., & PLOYHART, R. E. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00133.x · Cited by 101 · see citing works
- Authors
- McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P.
- Affiliations
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- Ameren (United States) (US)
- AT&T (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 730-740
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2148353238
- Cited by
- 470
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 28
- FWCI
- 16.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
- Keywords
- situational judgment tests, job performance prediction, criterion validity, construct validity, general intelligence, tacit knowledge, employment testing
- MeSH terms
- Employee Performance Appraisal, Forecasting, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Problem Solving, Professional Competence, Psychology, Industrial, Psychometrics, Task Performance and Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review