Situational Judgement Tests: Guide and Best Practices for Hiring

When it comes to psychometric testing, practitioners and researchers are frequently at odds over face validity Practitioners need assessments that look like they are useful indicators of performance in the workplace; otherwise, candidates and stakeholders will protest at their use. Researchers, however, often maintain that this is a purely superficial concern, and that practitioners should focus on whether assessments actually are useful indicators of workplace performance.

Unfortunately, face validity and actual validity do not always coincide, and many assessments that are superficially relevant to performance are, in fact, practically useless. Similarly, many assessments from cognitive, clinical, and educational research actually turn out to be highly predictive of performance in the workplace, but no candidate or layperson would ever consider them to be acceptable employee selection tools.

In this article, we will outline what situational judgement tests are, how they work, and what makes them useful predictors of performance in the workplace.

Situational judgement tests are a unique form of psychometric assessment, designed to measure a person's ability to solve problems, make decisions, and apply reasonable judgement in the workplace. They are effectively a hybrid of a behavioural assessment, which measures personality constructs, and a cognitive assessment, designed to measure general cognitive ability.

Situational judgement tests can be used at any level, but they are most typically used for early careers hiring. Like other psychometric assessments, situational judgement tests are highly scalable and can be used conveniently at volume. Candidates can be easily ranked based on their score, allowing organisations to quickly filter candidates and progress those with the highest potential.

Situational judgement tests tend to be highly role-specific, and thus have broad applicability to any number of roles. For example, some situational judgement tests are specific to sales, customer service, or management, with applicability only to the desired role. This helps maintain face validity, ensuring that candidates and stakeholders accept the usefulness of the assessment and do not protest needing to complete it as part of a recruitment process.

Situational judgement tests present candidates with a wide range of hypothetical situations which are relevant to the role they are applying for. For example, the test could outline that they are a graduate scheme trainee at a bank, a trainee manager at a retail store, or an apprentice at an engineering firm, etc. Typically, after explaining the situation, a problem or opportunity will arise that requires a response from the candidate, requiring them to choose from a range of actions.

In some assessments, candidates will need to choose one response from the option list. In others, they may need to rate the effectiveness of each listed response. In others, they may need to rank order the effectiveness of the listed responses. In all cases, the candidate needs to apply problem-solving and reasonable judgement to appraise the effectiveness of each response, highlighting to the organisation that they would act reasonably if such an issue arises in their daily work life.

Situational judgement tests have a long history of use and research; however, their psychometric properties are relatively poorly understood compared to cognitive and behavioural assessments. For example, for much of their history, situational judgement test scores have been presented in line with particular behavioural competencies, i.e. organisational ability, people skills, resilience, etc. However, more research suggests that situational judgement tests do not measure specific competencies, but instead focus on a general decision-making/judgement factor. This highlights how the research on situational judgement tests is still evolving.

This relationship is typically weaker than the association between cognitive ability and job performance, but greater than conscientiousness and job performance. This makes sense, as the research also shows that situational judgement tests are themselves partial measures of cognitive ability and conscientiousness, and this is reflected in their predictive validity.

When it comes to fairness and adverse impact, situational judgement tests show fairly low group differences. In particular, the scoring methodology seems to strongly impact the fairness of the assessment, with subject matter scoring showing the highest levels of adverse impact. Conversely, consensus scoring methodologies show lower impact, particularly dichotomous consensus scoring. Overall, however, adverse impact is generally low, and organisations can rely on situational judgement tests to make high-stakes selection decisions, while simultaneously pursuing diversity and inclusion objectives.

Situational judgement tests represent an engaging and face-valid assessment methodology, while still providing plenty of predictive validity in the real world. They are an excellent option for organisations who struggle with stakeholder buy-in for psychometrics, representing a particularly palatable option for sceptical business leaders. However, their predictive validity is likely to be lower than that of pure cognitive or behavioural assessments, and they should not be viewed as a replacement for those assessment formats. Instead, the utility of situational judgement tests is indeed itself, situational, and organisations should ideally widen the scope of psychometric use. Nevertheless, situational judgement tests are a fair, effective, and accessible assessment format, and would almost certainly add value to a selection process that does not currently include any kind of psychometric assessment.

For more information about our suite of situational judgement tests, feel free to book a call with us to discuss your specific needs and requirements.