The main problem with situational judgment tests is that they do not have a good criterion for creating groupings of results that have a significant effect on the final score. To solve this problem, computer-based testing methods have been developed that use different algorithms and statistical procedures to generate reliable results from the data. Several studies have confirmed the effectiveness of such procedures. Furthermore, high-quality tests that use high-quality criteria and software, along with well-established techniques for managing and administering them, have been found to improve testing performance and quality.
Some people argue that even if it is not feasible to create truly random sets of conditions for situational judgment tests, the procedure can still be improved by using well-established techniques for managing and administering them. One example is the use of multiple decision criteria, or MDC. A set of MDCs usually consists of one or more criterion, which is required in a specific situation. For example, all possible outcomes of a scenario must be included, while all plausible outcomes outside that scenario could also be included.
The most widely-used MDCs in situational judgement tests involve two or more alternatives and the decision-maker have to select the one most likely to result in a set of expected outcomes. However, there are some situations where we simply do not have a choice, and the only reasonable course of action is to choose the most likely option. Situational judgement requires the decision-maker to apply sufficient logic and analysis to these situations so as to arrive at a reasonable answer. Otherwise, it will be perceived as arbitrary, and there will be a suspicion that the decision-maker is not acting in an intelligent way.
There are several ways to ensure that situational judgment tests provide reliable data. First, it is important to consider whether the procedure used to calculate the scores is based on an accurate model of individual preferences and decisions. Second, reliability of the results should be evaluated by looking into the various theoretical foundations of the method, including the assumptions about the sources of measurement and the distribution of the data. Third, the accuracy of the tests should be verified by looking into the results of past examinations.
The competencies of the job description: The competencies needed to perform the job description must be understood. Where possible, past performance should be compared with the current one. The value of good performance is assessed against the minimum set of competencies. The competencies required are measured against the job description in terms of the functions, duties, and practices used in carrying out the job description. The scale used is specific and is intended to specify the level of functioning required.
The range of response options: Situational judgment also takes into consideration the range of response options available in situations. The analysis here consists of evaluating the likelihood of the different choices being made and the effect it would have on the overall organization. It is based on the assumption that a manager is required to make the right choices under all circumstances. The various scenarios are listed and a range of different responses (from ‘disappear’ to ‘winners) is calculated. The importance of the judgment is determined.
The relevance of situational reasoning test: Situational judgment test is normally asked in situations involving complex problems. For the managers, it is used as a way of checking for the relevance of the information that has been gained during analysis. It helps in deciding whether the information gathered has sufficient validity to justify asking the different questionnaires. The judgment can also be used for developing alternative responses to the same scenario.
