I originally thought these types of predictors were useful for only looking at job specific situations but I like how they used goal orientation. Would the construct validity change if using job specific knowledge? I guess I'm thinking of the CAPS essays and how it requires specialized knowledge about what to do in that situation.
Also, notice that one of the universities suggested that their subjects be paid $50 instead of $40. Looks like Occidental College is boojee...haha
I liked the method the authors proposed to examine the variance of SJT responses and improve construct validity. Is this particular method ever used in an applied practice setting? I can see where it might be challenging to examine how personality, cognitive ability, etc. might relate to situational or trait-like responses.
The 3 x's more variance that situational covered over trait-like responses seemed to contradict the recent article that said SJTs are not good at measuring job specific knowledge. It would seem that situational responses are measuring more of a job knowledge domain.
The finding that the adoption of mastery goals tends to be situation specific was interesting. After reading this article, I wondered if the utility of SJTs for understanding the situation and the performance goals the situation induced was greater than its use as a selection tool.
There’s something important here about ‘stronger’ contexts and ‘weaker’ contexts. The type of context influences the type of goals. I’m not sure what we are supposed to be learning from this article about SJTs. I see that the study shows us that the proportion of item variance attributable to situational factors accounts for 3 times the amount of variance as individual differences (trait-based, stay the sam across situations, like the mastery-goal orientation).
It’s uplifting to learn that situations can have a positive influence in increasing mastery goal orientation. This to me fits well with the research related to self-fulfilling prophecy in addition to the learning-goal orientation. I would like to know more about each specific situation (i.e., what were their similarities/differences, as well as their associated outcomes) and what could be some possible antecedents. For example, do the people who are performance-avoid go into these situations with a negative attitude/close mind? How do you think this additional information might be useful?
I originally thought these types of predictors were useful for only looking at job specific situations but I like how they used goal orientation. Would the construct validity change if using job specific knowledge? I guess I'm thinking of the CAPS essays and how it requires specialized knowledge about what to do in that situation.
ReplyDeleteAlso, notice that one of the universities suggested that their subjects be paid $50 instead of $40. Looks like Occidental College is boojee...haha
I liked the method the authors proposed to examine the variance of SJT responses and improve construct validity. Is this particular method ever used in an applied practice setting? I can see where it might be challenging to examine how personality, cognitive ability, etc. might relate to situational or trait-like responses.
ReplyDeleteThe 3 x's more variance that situational covered over trait-like responses seemed to contradict the recent article that said SJTs are not good at measuring job specific knowledge. It would seem that situational responses are measuring more of a job knowledge domain.
ReplyDeleteThe finding that the adoption of mastery goals tends to be situation specific was interesting. After reading this article, I wondered if the utility of SJTs for understanding the situation and the performance goals the situation induced was greater than its use as a selection tool.
ReplyDeleteThere’s something important here about ‘stronger’ contexts and ‘weaker’ contexts. The type of context influences the type of goals. I’m not sure what we are supposed to be learning from this article about SJTs. I see that the study shows us that the proportion of item variance attributable to situational factors accounts for 3 times the amount of variance as individual differences (trait-based, stay the sam across situations, like the mastery-goal orientation).
ReplyDeleteWhat types of jobs do you think these SJTs would work best for?
ReplyDeleteIt’s uplifting to learn that situations can have a positive influence in increasing mastery goal orientation. This to me fits well with the research related to self-fulfilling prophecy in addition to the learning-goal orientation. I would like to know more about each specific situation (i.e., what were their similarities/differences, as well as their associated outcomes) and what could be some possible antecedents. For example, do the people who are performance-avoid go into these situations with a negative attitude/close mind? How do you think this additional information might be useful?
ReplyDelete