IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v9y2016i01p77-83_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

SJTs as Measures of General Domain Knowledge for Multimedia Formats: Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words?

Author

Listed:
  • Naemi, Bobby
  • Martin-Raugh, Michelle
  • Kell, Harrison

Abstract

Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) present a case for situational judgment tests (SJTs) to be conceptualized as measures of general domain knowledge, which the authors define as knowledge of the effectiveness of general domains such as integrity, conscientiousness, and prosocial behaviors in different jobs. This argument comes from work rooted in the use of SJTs as measures of implicit trait policies (Motowidlo & Beier, 2010; Motowidlo, Hooper, & Jackson, 2006), measured with a format described as a “single response SJT†(Kell, Motowidlo, Martin, Stotts, & Moreno, 2014; Motowidlo, Crook, Kell, & Naemi, 2009). Given evidence that SJTs can be used as measures of general domain knowledge, the focal article concludes with a suggestion that general knowledge can be measured not only by traditional text-based or paper-and-pencil SJTs but also through varying alternate formats, including multimedia SJTs and interactive SJTs.

Suggested Citation

  • Naemi, Bobby & Martin-Raugh, Michelle & Kell, Harrison, 2016. "SJTs as Measures of General Domain Knowledge for Multimedia Formats: Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words?," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 77-83, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:01:p:77-83_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942615001212/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:9:y:2016:i:01:p:77-83_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.