The Federal Government will Become America's Model Employer for the 21st Century.
Recruit, Retain and Honor a World-Class Workforce to Serve the American People.
Review the new 2014 Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Handbook
Answering your questions about Healthcare and Insurance
Manage your retirement online.
Human Resources and Security Specialists should use this tool to determine the correct investigation level for any covered position within the U.S. Federal Government.
OPM’s Human Resources Solutions organization can help your agency answer this critically important question.
Developing senior leaders in the U.S. Government through Leadership for a Democratic Society, Custom Programs and Interagency Courses.
Visit this federal site to search for our regulatory notices, proposed and final rules.
See the latest tweets on our Twitter feed, like our Facebook pages, watch our YouTube videos, and page through our Flickr photos.
Situational judgment tests (SJTs) present applicants with a description of a work problem or critical situation related to the job they are applying for and ask them to identify how they would handle it. Because applicants are not placed in a simulated work setting and are not asked to perform the task or behavior (as would be the case in an assessment center or a work sample), SJTs are classified as low-fidelity simulations.
SJTs measure effectiveness in social functioning dimensions such as conflict management, interpersonal skills, problem solving, negotiation skills, facilitating teamwork, and cultural awareness. SJTs are particularly effective measures of managerial and leadership competencies.
SJTs can be developed to present scenarios and collect responses using a variety of formats. One alternative is to present a situation and then ask respondents to answer several questions about the situation. More often, SJTs present a new situation for each question. To respond to this type of SJT item, applicants may be asked: a) what they would do in the particular situation, b) what they would be most and least likely to do in the situation, c) what response is the best response among several options, d) what response is the best and second-best among several options, or e) what would most likely occur next in a certain situation or as a result of a certain decision.
SJTs can be presented in either a linear or interactive format. With a linear format, all respondents are presented with the same questions and in the same order. With an interactive (usually computer administered) format, SJTs can be structured according to a branching process in which the scenarios and response options presented later in the test depend on how applicants responded to questions presented earlier in the test. SJT questions and alternatives are typically based on critical incidents generated by subject matter (i.e., job) experts. Scores are based on subject matter experts' judgments of the best and worst alternatives.
(See Section VI for a summary of each article)
Hanson, M. A., Horgen, K. E., & Borman W. C. (1998, April). Situational judgment tests (SJT) as measures of knowledge/expertise. Paper presented as the 13th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P, Finnegan, E. B, Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 730-740.
McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., & Nguyen, N. T. (2006). Situational judgment tests for personnel selection. Alexandria, VA: IPMA Assessment Council.
Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 640-647.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Tippins, N. (1993). Further studies of the low-fidelity simulation in the form of a situational inventory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 337-344.
Weekley, J. A., & Jones, C. (1999). Further studies of situational tests. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 679-700.
Back to Top