1 / 7

Assessing Construct Validity and Adverse Impact of Situational Judgment with Structured Interviews

This presentation by Frederick P. Morgeson and colleagues focuses on the construct validity and adverse impact of Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) using structured interviews. It discusses current trends in SJTs, including their increased prominence and various scoring methods. With sample sizes of over 3,000 applicants over two years, the research evaluates the independence of SJTs from general cognitive ability ('g') and highlights the lack of group differences, suggesting SJTs may help improve selection processes. Insights into assessment methods and implications for hiring practices are provided.

skylar
Télécharger la présentation

Assessing Construct Validity and Adverse Impact of Situational Judgment with Structured Interviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing Situational Judgment with a Structured Interview: Construct Validity and Adverse Impact Frederick P. Morgeson Talya N. Bauer Donald M. Truxillo Michael A. Campion Slides are available at: http://www.msu.edu/~morgeson/ In F. L. Oswald (Chairperson), Advances and Construct Validity Issues in Situational Judgment Tests. Symposium conducted at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

  2. Use of Situational Judgment Tests • Become much more prominent • Typical format • Paper & Pencil • Multiple choice Q&A • Different ways to score • Good criterion, unknown construct validity • McDaniel et al. (2001) • Criterion-related validity (ρ = .34) • Relationships with ‘g’ (ρ = .46) • Group differences/adverse impact?

  3. Alternatives to Situational Judgment • Different ways to assess individual judgment in hypothetical situations • Situational interview questions • Ask applicants to describe how they would respond to hypothetical situations likely to face in future • An alternative way to assess situational judgment • Current research used a situational interview • Assess construct validity and group differences

  4. Method • Sample • Year 1: 1,023 applicants • Year 2: 2,295 applicants • Approximately 60% male • 4% Hispanic & 3% African-American • Selection procedure • Part 1: Written test battery • Part 2: Assessment center

  5. Method • More detail about situational interview • Longer and more involved; emphasized “situational” character • Utilized follow-up questions to challenge candidate and make situation more complex/difficult • Example question

  6. Method • Written test battery • All measures demonstrated adequate reliability • Assessment center scoring • All exercises rated by multiple assessors on multiple dimensions; high interrater and internal consistency reliability • Averaged across dimension to create exercise score • Analyses • Correlations & d’s

  7. Discussion • Conclusions • As implemented, this type of situational judgment test appears to be independent of ‘g’ • No group differences (may actually help?) • Might be a useful way to assess situational judgment • Caveats • Is this comparable to a written situational judgment test? • Are situational judgment tests simply a measurement method?

More Related