•Should I/O psychologists get a degree in videography too? (LOL) It seems that different administration methods of SJTs apply to different predictor criteria and constructs. How do practitioners keep up on these type of administrative differences?
I thought this was a very interesting article, because it shows that the method of testing makes a huge difference. Perhaps people with high cognitive ability do better with a pencil and paper in general. While the video provides that social context, where people with more social skills might perform better. I wonder which method is a better predictor of performance?
Would we find similar administration mode differences with SJTs that measure different constructs? What constructs can you think of that might be more appropriately measured by video and by paper?
Given that the written SJT is a better predictor of cognitive ability and that the video SJT is a better predictor of interpersonal skills, what types of jobs might be better for written SJTs vs. video SJTs?
Why might format (video vs. paper) moderate the relationship between scores on the SJT and performance? Do you think that grades from interpersonally oriented classes represent an appropriate criterion form measuring the validity of an SJT?
I do not find their findings to be surprising. First, with a video tape SJT, there is probably a lot more room for discrimination and threat to validity, which could explain the small relationship between cognitive ability and SJT performance. Also, it is more difficult to control impressions when recorded vs. when writing. Second, with the video recording, it seems like you receive much more relevant information for predicting social skills than in a written response format. Did you guys draw similar conclusions?
•Should I/O psychologists get a degree in videography too? (LOL) It seems that different administration methods of SJTs apply to different predictor criteria and constructs. How do practitioners keep up on these type of administrative differences?
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a very interesting article, because it shows that the method of testing makes a huge difference. Perhaps people with high cognitive ability do better with a pencil and paper in general. While the video provides that social context, where people with more social skills might perform better. I wonder which method is a better predictor of performance?
ReplyDeleteWould we find similar administration mode differences with SJTs that measure different constructs? What constructs can you think of that might be more appropriately measured by video and by paper?
ReplyDeleteGiven that the written SJT is a better predictor of cognitive ability and that the video SJT is a better predictor of interpersonal skills, what types of jobs might be better for written SJTs vs. video SJTs?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why did they stop using video-based SJT's in the selection process for the med school in Belgium?
ReplyDeleteWhy might format (video vs. paper) moderate the relationship between scores on the SJT and performance? Do you think that grades from interpersonally oriented classes represent an appropriate criterion form measuring the validity of an SJT?
ReplyDeleteI do not find their findings to be surprising. First, with a video tape SJT, there is probably a lot more room for discrimination and threat to validity, which could explain the small relationship between cognitive ability and SJT performance. Also, it is more difficult to control impressions when recorded vs. when writing. Second, with the video recording, it seems like you receive much more relevant information for predicting social skills than in a written response format. Did you guys draw similar conclusions?
ReplyDelete