Social Cognition
Situational Judgment Task
Also called: situational judgment test, situational judgement test, SJT, low-fidelity simulation
Measure judgment in everyday work and team situations: participants pick the most and least effective of four responses in twelve original situations, scored against a key written for this library and, as an option, against your study's own answers.
6-9 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 462
- Evidence grade
- B
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures judgment in everyday work and team situations. Participants read 12 situations, each with four possible responses, and pick the most and the least effective response, or rate each one. The main score is agreement with the key written for this test.
Constructs
- Situational judgment
- Judgment of effective behavior at work
- Practical social judgment
- Agreement with a key and with peers
Research uses
- Personnel and organizational psychology research
- Research on selection and admissions assessment
- Individual differences in social judgment
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The situational judgment task measures judgment in everyday situations at work and in teams, in the form of a low-fidelity simulation (Motowidlo, Dunnette and Carter, 1990): instead of acting a situation out, the participant reads it and judges a few possible responses. Situational judgment tests are used in personnel selection and in admission to professional schools; in the meta-analysis of McDaniel and colleagues (2001) they predicted job performance (estimated validity .34) and correlated with general mental ability (.46). Twelve situations written for this task need no job knowledge: a late part of a shared report, an angry customer, a problem nobody raised in a meeting, a new colleague's many questions, one's own mistake, too much work, an idea presented by someone else, a group member doing less, two clashing requests, critical feedback, a request to break a rule and a colleague's weak draft. Each has four responses, shown in an order drawn from the session's seed. In the standard format the participant picks the most effective response and then the least effective of the other three; in the rating format each response is rated on its own screen, from very ineffective to very effective. A setting asks instead what the participant would most likely do, the behavioral tendency instructions that McDaniel and colleagues (2007) compared with knowledge instructions: scores under knowledge instructions correlated more with cognitive ability and those under behavioral tendency instructions more with personality, with the same validity. One practice situation comes first. There is no time limit and no feedback.
More about the paradigm
The main score is agreement with the key written for this task, from -1 (the key reversed) through 0 to 1 (the key). The key rates each response from 1 to 4, with one best and one worst response per situation: direct, respectful action that solves the problem and keeps people informed is most effective, and avoiding the problem, hiding it or turning others against someone least effective. Picking the best response as most effective adds 1 and the worst subtracts 1, the reverse for the least effective pick, and the sum is halved in each situation. Ratings agree by their correlation with the key's values in each situation, which leaves out how high or how spread a person's ratings run (McDaniel and colleagues, 2011). A study setting adds consensus scores once the study is completed or archived: each answer scores the share of the study's other participants who gave the same answer, the proportion consensus scoring that Weng and colleagues (2018) compared with other methods. Scores describe answers to these situations; they are research measures and do not select or rank people for jobs.
Scores
- Key Scorescore
- Agreement with the key, from -1 (reversed) to 1, averaged over complete situations. Picks: half of (+1 when the most effective pick is the key's best, -1 when it is the worst) minus the same for the least effective pick. Ratings: the correlation of a situation's four ratings with the key's values.
- Higher means closer to the key's judgment; 0 is what random answers give
- Best Response Picked%
- Share of situations where the response picked as most effective (or most likely) is the key's best. Picks only.
- Informational
- Worst Response Picked%
- Share of situations where the response picked as least effective (or least likely) is the key's worst. Picks only.
- Informational
- Picks Against the Keycount
- The key's worst response picked as most effective plus its best picked as least effective. Picks only.
- Low expected
- Rating Distancescore
- Mean absolute difference between each rating and the key's value, on the 1 to 4 scale. Ratings only.
- Lower means closer to the key, level included
- Mean Ratingscore
- Mean of all ratings, from 1 to 4: how high a person's ratings run. Ratings only.
- Informational
- Same-Rating Situationscount
- Situations where all four responses got the same rating; the key score leaves them out. Ratings only.
- Low expected
- Consensus Score%
- With the study consensus setting, once the study is completed or archived: the mean share of the study's other participants who gave the same answers. Empty while the study is open or when no other participant took the same version.
- Higher means closer to the study's common answers
- Consensus Participantscount
- Other participants whose answers formed the consensus.
- Informational
- Median Answer Timems
- Median time from a screen to its answer, over answers at or after 100 ms.
- Informational
- Answers Under 100 mscount
- Answers given less than 100 ms after the screen appeared.
- 0 expected
- Situationscount
- Situations answered in full, out of 12.
- Informational
- Planned Situationscount
- Situations in the run: 12.
- Informational
Use and evidence
462 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 13% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 61 of 632 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 116 |
| 2024 | 89 |
| 2023 | 84 |
| 2022 | 83 |
| 2021 | 90 |
| 2020 | 91 |
| 2019 | 87 |
| 2018 | 69 |
| 2017 | 80 |
| 2016 | 81 |
| 2015 | 65 |
| 2014 | 58 |
| 2013 | 66 |
| 2012 | 50 |
| 2011 | 35 |
| 2010 | 31 |
| 2009 | 28 |
| 2008 | 21 |
| 2007 | 31 |
| 2006 | 23 |
| 2005 | 17 |
| 2004 | 13 |
| 2003 | 15 |
| 2002 | 6 |
| 2001 | 7 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade B
300 to 999 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade B
At least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 29
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 677
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: includes selection and admissions studies of published tests.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.44.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Situations
- 12 written for this task, at work or in a team, needing no job knowledge: a late part of a shared report, an angry customer, a problem nobody raised, a new colleague's many questions, one's own mistake, too much work, an idea presented by someone else, a group member doing less, two clashing requests, critical feedback, a request to break a rule and a weak draft. Shown in the session's language, in an order drawn from its seed.
- Responses
- Four per situation, one sentence each, in an order drawn from the session's seed.
- Answer format
- Standard: pick the most effective response, then the least effective of the other three. Setting: rate each response on its own screen, from very ineffective to very effective, on four buttons.
- Question
- Standard: how effective each response is (knowledge instructions). Setting: what the participant would most likely do (behavioral tendency instructions). Both are scored against the same key.
- Key
- Written for this library: each response rated from 1 to 4, with one best and one worst response per situation. Direct, respectful action that solves the problem and keeps people informed is most effective; avoiding the problem, hiding it or turning others against someone is least effective.
- Practice
- One practice situation about a booked meeting room, not scored. No feedback on answers and no time limit.
- Scores
- Agreement with the key from -1 to 1. Picks score +1 for the key's best picked as most effective and -1 for its worst, the reverse for the least effective pick, halved per situation. Ratings agree by their correlation with the key in each situation. Also the share of best and worst responses picked, or the distance from the key and the mean rating.
- Study consensus
- Optional. Once the study is completed or archived, each answer scores the share of the study's other participants who gave the same answer. Only participants with the same step, visit, language, answer format and question count, with one latest complete session per person. Reopening the study empties these scores.
No published test's situations, responses or key are used. The key is a judgment written for this library, so the study consensus setting can score answers against the study's own participants as well. Scores describe answers to these situations; they do not select or rank people for jobs, and there are no population percentiles.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the last answer to each pick or rating in the selected run. The key is a judgment, so agreement is not judged against chance. A run short of its situations or agreeing more with the reversed key than with the key is flagged. Answers under 200 ms on at least half the answers invalidate.
Why these rules
The key rates each response's effectiveness as written for this library; it is a judgment, not a correct answer, so agreement with it is not judged against chance. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Answer format | Pick the most and least effective (standard) | Pick the most and least effective (standard), Rate each response |
| Question | How effective each response is (standard) | How effective each response is (standard), What the participant would do |
| Study consensus scores | Off | On or off |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Situational Judgment Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Motowidlo SJ, Dunnette MD, Carter GW, 1990), with the standard settings (answer format: Pick the most and least effective; question: How effective each response is; study consensus scores: Off). The main score was key score (agreement with the key, from -1 (reversed) to 1, averaged over complete situations).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 640-647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.640The low-fidelity simulation: written work situations, each with five responses, and picks of the most and least likely.
- McDaniel, M. A., Morgeson, F. P., Finnegan, E. B., Campion, M. A., & Braverman, E. P. (2001). Use of situational judgment tests to predict job performance: A clarification of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 730-740. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.730Meta-analysis: validity for job performance and the correlation with general mental ability.
- McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of practice and constructs assessed. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2), 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00167Answer formats (most and least, best and worst, ratings) and keys from experts or from respondents.
- McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. (2007). Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 63-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00065.xKnowledge and behavioral tendency instructions, the question setting.
- McDaniel, M. A., Psotka, J., Legree, P. J., Yost, A. P., & Weekley, J. A. (2011). Toward an understanding of situational judgment item validity and group differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021983Scoring ratings apart from how high or spread they run.
- Weng, Q., Yang, H., Lievens, F., & McDaniel, M. A. (2018). Optimizing the validity of situational judgment tests: The importance of scoring methods. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.11.005Proportion consensus scoring, the study consensus setting.
Source papers
- McDaniel and colleagues (2001), a meta-analysis of situational judgment tests: estimated validity .34 for job performance and a correlation of .46 with general mental ability.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Situational Judgment Task take?
About 6 to 9 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Key Score, Best Response Picked, Worst Response Picked, Picks Against the Key, Rating Distance, Mean Rating, Same-Rating Situations, Consensus Score, Consensus Participants, Median Answer Time, Answers Under 100 ms, Situations and Planned Situations. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Situational Judgment Task used in research?
462 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 13% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 61 of 632 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade B). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.44.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Situational Judgment Task have?
In the published research, 29 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade B in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Answer format (Pick the most and least effective (standard), Rate each response), question (How effective each response is (standard), What the participant would do) and study consensus scores (On or off). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.