Effects of Situational Judgment Test Format on Reliability and Validity

IF 1 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Testing Pub Date : 2018-02-23 DOI:10.1080/15305058.2018.1428981
Michelle P. Martín‐Raugh, Cristina Anguiano-Carrsaco, Teresa Jackson, Meghan W. Brenneman, Lauren M. Carney, Patrick V. Barnwell, Jonathan F. Kochert
{"title":"Effects of Situational Judgment Test Format on Reliability and Validity","authors":"Michelle P. Martín‐Raugh, Cristina Anguiano-Carrsaco, Teresa Jackson, Meghan W. Brenneman, Lauren M. Carney, Patrick V. Barnwell, Jonathan F. Kochert","doi":"10.1080/15305058.2018.1428981","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Single-response situational judgment tests (SRSJTs) differ from multiple-response SJTs (MRSJTS) in that they present test takers with edited critical incidents and simply ask test takers to read over the action described and evaluate it according to its effectiveness. Research comparing the reliability and validity of SRSJTs and MRSJTs is thus far extremely limited. The study reported here directly compares forms of a SRSJT and MRSJT and explores the reliability, convergent validity, and predictive validity of each format. Results from this investigation present preliminary evidence to suggest SRSJTs may produce internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and predictive validity estimates that are comparable to those achieved with many traditional MRSJTs. We conclude by discussing practical implications for personnel selection and assessment, and future research in psychological science more broadly.","PeriodicalId":46615,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Testing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15305058.2018.1428981","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Testing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1428981","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Single-response situational judgment tests (SRSJTs) differ from multiple-response SJTs (MRSJTS) in that they present test takers with edited critical incidents and simply ask test takers to read over the action described and evaluate it according to its effectiveness. Research comparing the reliability and validity of SRSJTs and MRSJTs is thus far extremely limited. The study reported here directly compares forms of a SRSJT and MRSJT and explores the reliability, convergent validity, and predictive validity of each format. Results from this investigation present preliminary evidence to suggest SRSJTs may produce internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and predictive validity estimates that are comparable to those achieved with many traditional MRSJTs. We conclude by discussing practical implications for personnel selection and assessment, and future research in psychological science more broadly.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
情境判断测试格式对信度和有效性的影响
单反应情景判断测试(SRSJT)与多反应情景判断考试(MRSJTS)的不同之处在于,它们向考生提供经过编辑的关键事件,并简单地要求考生阅读所描述的行动,并根据其有效性进行评估。迄今为止,比较SRSJT和MRSJT的可靠性和有效性的研究极其有限。本文报道的研究直接比较了SRSJT和MRSJT的形式,并探讨了每种形式的可靠性、收敛有效性和预测有效性。这项研究的结果提供了初步证据,表明SRSJT可以产生内部一致性可靠性、收敛有效性和预测有效性估计,这些估计与许多传统MRSJT实现的估计相当。最后,我们讨论了对人员选择和评估以及未来更广泛的心理科学研究的实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Testing
International Journal of Testing SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Combining Mokken Scale Analysis with and rasch measurement theory to explore differences in measurement quality between subgroups Examining the construct validity of the MIDUS version of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Where nonresponse is at its loudest: Cross-country and individual differences in item nonresponse across the PISA 2018 student questionnaire The choice between cognitive diagnosis and item response theory: A case study from medical education Beyond group comparisons: Accounting for intersectional sources of bias in international survey measures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1