Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Situational Judgment Test/Evidence
Method evidence record

Situational Judgment Test

A situational judgment test (SJT) is a personnel-assessment method that presents candidates with realistic work scenarios and a set of possible responses, then measures their judgment about what action is most effective. Stephan Motowidlo, Marvin Dunnette, and Gary Carter introduced the modern form in 1990 as a low-fidelity simulation, capturing the predictive power of work samples and assessment centers at a fraction of the cost by describing situations in writing rather than staging them. SJTs sit between abstract trait tests and full behavioral simulations, sampling the judgment that effective performance requires while remaining scalable and standardized. McDaniel, Hartman, Whetzel, and Grubb's 2007 meta-analysis established their criterion-related validity and showed that response instructions shape what they measure. Weekley and Ployhart's 2006 edited volume gave the field a comprehensive theoretical and practical treatment. SJTs are now widely used in selection across managerial, medical, and customer-facing roles.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Situational Judgment Test (Scenario-Based Assessment of Work Judgment)
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / organizational-behavior
  • Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 640-647. · DOI 10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.640
  • McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. (2007). Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 63-91. · DOI 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00065.x
  • Weekley, J. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.). (2006). Situational Judgment Tests: Theory, Measurement, and Application. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. · ISBN 9780805852516
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Same method familyAssessment Center Methodmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyBehaviorally Anchored Rating Scalesmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyCritical Incident Techniquemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

3 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account