Cited by 183Medical Education and AdmissionsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingCognitive Abilities and Testing

Subgroup Differences in Situational Judgment Test Performance: A Meta-Analysis

Whetzel, Deborah L., McDaniel, Michael A., Nguyen, Nhung T.·2008·Human Performance

Abstract

In this article, we describe a systematic review of mean race and sex differences in situational judgment test (SJT) performance. On average, White test takers perform better on SJTs than Black, Hispanic, and Asian test takers. Female examinees perform slightly better than male test takers on SJTs. We investigate two moderators of these differences: loading of g or personality on the SJT, and response instructions. Mean race differences between Black, Hispanic, Asian and White examinees in SJT performance are largely explained by the cognitive loading of the SJT such that the larger the cognitive load, the larger the mean race differences. Regarding the effect of personality loadings of SJTs on race differences, Black–White and Asian–White differences are smaller to the extent that the SJT is correlated with emotional stability and Hispanic–White differences are smaller to the extent that SJTs are correlated with conscientiousness and agreeableness. Cognitive loading has minimal effect on male–female SJT score differences; however, SJT score differences are larger, favoring women, when SJTs are correlated with conscientiousness and agreeableness. Concerning response instructions, knowledge response instructions showed greater race differences than behavioral tendency instructions. The mean correlations show that these differences are largely because of the greater g loading of knowledge instructions. A second study showed that when used in hiring, SJTs are likely to have adve…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08959280802137820

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Whetzel, McDaniel, and Nguyen's meta-analysis shows group differences in Situational Judgment Test performance are largely explained by the cognitive loading of the SJT.

    “Whetzel, McDaniel, and Nguyen's [8] meta-analysis shows that group differences in SJT performance are largely explained by the cognitive loading of the SJT.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whetzel, D. L., McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T.
Affiliations
  • Human Resources Research Organization (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • Towson University (US)
Venue
Human Performance
Published
2008-07
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
291-309
ISSN
  • 0895-9285 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7043
OpenAlex
W1972338932
Cited by
183
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 11
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human Performance (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
situational judgment tests, racial differences, sex differences, cognitive load, general intelligence, personality traits, response instructions, adverse impact, personnel selection, black-white disparities, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability

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