Situational judgement tests explained
4 minutes
Ben Schwencke explains what SJTs are, how they work, and where they add the most value in a hiring process.
Situational judgement tests (SJTs) are one of the few assessment methods that candidates genuinely don't mind completing. They're engaging, they feel relevant, and they work — making them a particularly useful tool for organisations that want to improve the quality and fairness of their hiring without creating friction in the candidate experience.
This guide explains what SJTs are, how they work, what the research says about their effectiveness, and — crucially — where they fit best alongside other assessment methods in a modern hiring process.
What are situational judgement tests?
Situational judgement tests are a form of psychometric assessment that measures how candidates make decisions and apply judgement in realistic workplace scenarios. Unlike most assessments, which focus on either cognitive ability or personality traits in isolation, SJTs are a hybrid — they draw on both, capturing the kind of practical thinking that underlies effective performance at work.
This makes SJTs particularly valuable for roles where good judgement matters: customer-facing roles, management positions, graduate and early careers programmes, and any job where candidates need to navigate ambiguous or high-stakes situations.
SJTs are one of the few assessments that score highly on both face validity — looking relevant to the job — and actual predictive validity. Candidates accept them readily, and they genuinely predict performance. That combination is rarer than it sounds.
They're also highly scalable. Like other psychometric assessments, SJTs are completed online, scores are calculated automatically, and candidates can be ranked and filtered at volume. Test Partnership's SJTs are role-specific, meaning each one is built around the scenarios and decisions relevant to a particular type of job — which strengthens both their face validity and their predictive power.
How situational judgement tests work
Each SJT presents a series of hypothetical scenarios drawn from real workplace situations relevant to the role. The candidate is given context — their position, the setting, the people involved — and then asked to respond to a problem or decision that has arisen.
Depending on the assessment format, candidates might be asked to select the single best course of action from a list, rate each option on a scale of effectiveness, or rank the options in order. In all cases, the candidate needs to apply sound judgement to evaluate the options available.
"Researchers are still refining the best approach to SJT scoring, but the evidence is consistent: regardless of the scoring method used, SJTs show meaningful predictive validity for job performance."
The "correct" answers are determined through one of several methods: subject matter experts (typically experienced managers) agreeing on the scoring key, consensus scoring based on a large representative group, or empirical keying that links responses to actual job performance data. Test Partnership's SJTs use robust scoring methodologies validated against real performance outcomes.
Here's an example of what a Test Partnership situational judgement test looks like in practice — showing the scenario format and response options candidates see:
Candidates find SJTs engaging rather than intimidating — the format feels closer to a work exercise than a test, which tends to result in better completion rates and a more positive candidate experience. You can see the full range of Test Partnership's situational judgement tests, including role-specific versions for customer service, management, sales, and early careers.
The research behind SJTs
Situational judgement tests have a substantial evidence base, though their psychometric properties are more complex than those of ability or personality assessments. Here's what the research shows:
| Research finding | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| Moderate predictive validity | SJTs reliably predict job performance, though typically not as strongly as pure cognitive ability tests. This makes them most valuable as part of a combined process. |
| Partial measure of cognitive ability and conscientiousness | SJTs don't fully replace either — but they capture elements of both, which is why they work as a complement rather than a substitute. |
| Low adverse impact | Group differences on SJTs are generally small, particularly when consensus scoring methods are used. They're a fair choice for organisations with D&I goals. |
| High face validity | Candidates and stakeholders intuitively accept SJTs as relevant and appropriate — which matters a great deal for buy-in, especially in organisations new to psychometric testing. |
SJTs vs other assessment methods
To understand where SJTs add the most value, it helps to compare them directly with the other tools in a typical hiring process. Each method has a different strength profile — and the gaps in one are often where another adds the most value.
| Aptitude tests | Personality questionnaire | Situational judgement tests | Unstructured interviews | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primarily measures | Cognitive ability | Behavioural traits | Judgement & decision-making | Presentation & people skills |
| Predictive validity | Very high | High | Moderate | Low |
| Adverse impact risk | Moderate | Minimal | Low | High (interviewer bias) |
| Face validity | Moderate | Moderate | High | Very high |
| Candidate experience | Neutral | Comfortable | Engaging | High stakes |
| Scalable to volume | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
The picture that emerges is clear: SJTs are not the strongest predictor of performance on their own, but they offer something the other tools don't — high face validity combined with low adverse impact and an engaging format. That makes them a natural complement to aptitude tests and personality questionnaires, filling the gaps those tools leave rather than duplicating what they already cover.
Using SJTs alongside other assessments
The most common mistake with SJTs is treating them as a standalone screen. Their predictive validity is meaningful, but it's not as strong as aptitude tests or personality questionnaires measured independently. The real value of SJTs comes from combining them with those tools — each assessment capturing something different, and together forming a more complete picture of every candidate.
Think of SJTs as the assessment that ties a process together. They bring face validity to a suite that might otherwise feel abstract to candidates and stakeholders, they serve as a realistic job preview, and they add a practical judgement dimension that ability tests and personality questionnaires alone don't capture.
Recommended combinations
| Use case | Recommended combination | Where SJT adds value |
|---|---|---|
| Early careers / graduate volume | Aptitude tests + SJT | Improves candidate experience; adds judgement dimension to cognitive screen; acts as a job preview |
| Role-specific hiring (e.g. management, customer service) | Personality questionnaire + SJT | Validates personality findings against how the candidate actually responds in context; high face validity for stakeholders |
| Full assessment centre | Aptitude tests + personality questionnaire + SJT | Provides an engaging midpoint exercise; realistic job preview; covers judgement separately from ability or traits |
| No psychometrics currently | SJT alone as a starting point | Easiest assessment to introduce to sceptical stakeholders; high buy-in; predictive improvement over interviews alone |
Test Partnership's platform is designed to run all three assessment types in a single joined-up process — candidates receive one invitation, complete assessments in sequence, and hiring managers see consolidated results in one place. There's no need to stitch together multiple tools from different suppliers.
Add an SJT to your existing process
Our SJTs are designed to complement ability tests and personality questionnaires — not replace them. Speak to our team to find the right combination for your roles.
Conclusion
Situational judgement tests occupy a genuinely useful niche in the assessment toolkit. They're fairer than interviews, more engaging than ability tests, and more practical-feeling than personality questionnaires — and they predict performance meaningfully in their own right. The key is using them for what they're best at: as a complement to ability tests and personality questionnaires, not a replacement for them.
If you're currently relying on interviews alone, an SJT is one of the most accessible improvements you can make — stakeholders accept them readily and candidates complete them willingly. If you're already running a psychometric process, adding an SJT rounds it out with a realistic job preview dimension that the other tools don't provide.
Test Partnership offers role-specific situational judgement tests designed to run alongside our aptitude tests and TPAQ-45 personality questionnaire in a single, streamlined process — giving you richer candidate data and a better experience on both sides of the hiring process.
If you'd like to discuss which combination of assessments makes sense for your specific roles, our team of business psychologists is happy to help.
Get started with situational judgement tests
Speak to one of our expert business psychologists, or explore our full range of assessments to find the right fit for your process.
Primary author
Ben Schwencke
Chief psychologist at Test Partnership. MSc in Organisational Psychology with over ten years experience in psychometric testing.
Contributed to by:
