Assessment Methods
Situational Judgement Tests Explained With Examples
30 January 2025
A situational judgement test (SJT) presents candidates with realistic, job-related scenarios and asks them to pick the most (or least) effective response.
Because SJTs evaluate decision-making rather than memorised facts, they add up to 15% incremental validity over cognitive ability alone (McDaniel et al., 2007).
Below, we explain what situational judgement tests are, why they work, and how to build one that mirrors your organisation’s values.
What Are Situational Judgement Tests?
SJTs are low-fidelity simulations: brief vignettes followed by multiple plausible actions.
Scores reflect practical intelligence—the capacity to apply knowledge in ambiguous situations.
Versatile Format for Any Role
The format is versatile:
- Graduate schemes
- Frontline retail
- Nursing
- Senior leadership
All use SJTs tailored to role pressures.
Why Recruiters Use Them
Compared with unstructured interviews, situational judgement tests triple the predictive validity while cutting assessment time by half (Harvard Business Review, 2019).
They also minimise social-desirability bias because answers are situation-specific, not self-evaluative.
The Science Behind SJTs
Predictive Validity
Meta-analyses find average predictive validity of ρ = .38 against job performance.
When SJTs are video-based and aligned to organisational values, validity rises to ρ = .45 (Lievens et al., 2022).
Fairness and Diversity
Crucially, subgroup differences are 50–70% smaller than cognitive tests, making SJTs a diversity-friendly screening layer.
Candidate Reactions
78% rate SJTs as “face valid” and “fair”, compared with 49% for abstract reasoning (Aon, 2021).
High face validity reduces litigation risk and boosts employer brand.
Three Real-World SJT Examples
Example 1: Customer Success Manager
Scenario: A high-value client insists on a feature that is not on the product roadmap. Engineering says it will delay launch by six weeks. What do you do?
- A. Escalate to the VP Sales immediately.
- B. Offer the client three months free service in exchange for postponing the feature.
- C. Run a cost-benefit analysis and present options to both stakeholders.
- D. Promise the feature and ask engineering to “find a way”.
Key: C = best; A = acceptable; B = marginal; D = worst.
Example 2: Warehouse Operative
Scenario: You notice a colleague skipping safety protocol to hit targets. What action? (Rank effectiveness.)
- Remind them of protocol.
- Report to supervisor.
- Do nothing—targets are everyone’s priority.
Example 3: Junior Analyst
Scenario: Your manager asks for a slide deck in two hours, but you have a conflicting deadline. Choose the least effective response:
- A. Re-prioritise with your manager.
- B. Work late and do both.
- C. Delegate slide formatting to a teammate.
- D. Ignore the second deadline.
Designing Your Own SJT
Follow these steps to create a robust, fair test:
- Conduct a critical-incident interview with high performers. Capture 30–50 situations.
- Write 3–5 response options that span effectiveness levels; ensure no obvious right answer.
- Subject-matter experts rank responses; keep items with ≥75% agreement.
- Pilot on 100 incumbents; compute item-total correlations >.25.
- Set scoring key: best = +2, acceptable = +1, marginal = 0, worst = –1.
- Add multimedia. Video SJTs raise completion by 12% (Knockri, 2020).
- Monitor adverse impact. Remove or adjust items where pass-rate difference >20%.
Remember to refresh items every 18–24 months to prevent overexposure.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Double jeopardy. Don’t test the same competency twice in one battery.
- Culture drift. Generic SJTs miss role nuance; always localise language and context.
- Over-marking. Weight SJTs ≤30% of final hiring score to avoid diminishing cognitive ability signals.
- Ignoring accessibility. Provide text alternatives for video SJTs to comply with WCAG 2.1.
SkillProof generates AI-powered, scenario-based assessments tailored to any role. Try it free.