Publication Type
Journal Article
Version
acceptedVersion
Publication Date
9-2006
Abstract
In this study, the authors examined whether video-based situational judgment tests (SJTs) have higher predictive validity than written SJTs (keeping verbal content constant). The samples consisted of 1, 159 students who completed a video-based version of an SIT and 1,750 students who completed the same SIT in a written format. The study was conducted in a high stakes testing context. The video-based version of an interpersonally oriented SJT had a lower correlation with cognitive ability than did the written version. It also had higher predictive and incremental validity for predicting interpersonally oriented criteria than did the written version. In this high stakes context, applicants also reacted relatively favorably to the SJTs, although there was no significant difference in face validity between the formats. These findings suggest that SIT format changes be made with caution and that validation evidence is needed when changes are proposed.
Keywords
Situational judgment test, video, predictive validity
Discipline
Industrial and Organizational Psychology | Organizational Behavior and Theory
Research Areas
Organisational Behaviour and Human Resources
Publication
Journal of Applied Psychology
Volume
91
Issue
5
First Page
1181
Last Page
1188
ISSN
0021-9010
Identifier
10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1181
Publisher
American Psychological Association
Citation
LIEVENS, Filip and SACKETT, Paul R..
Video-based versus written situational judgment tests: A comparison in terms of predictive validity. (2006). Journal of Applied Psychology. 91, (5), 1181-1188.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5511
Copyright Owner and License
Authors
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Additional URL
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1181
Included in
Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons, Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons