The Criterion‐Related Validities and Perceived Fairness of the Situational Interview and the Situational Judgment Test in an Iranian Organisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The criterion‐related validity coefficients of a situational interview (SI) and a situational judgment test (SJT) were investigated in a sales department of a government‐owned automobile company in Iran. Both the SI and SJT had concurrent validity with job performance ( n = 101, r = .28, r = .23, p < .05, respectively). Only the SI, however, had incremental validity over and above the SJT in predicting job performance. Furthermore, the SI fully mediated the relationship between SJT and job performance. The two methods did not differ significantly on employee motivation to perform well, perceived fairness, or test anxiety. Nevertheless, employees recommended the use of the SI over the SJT. Les coefficients de validité critérielle d'un entretien situationnel (SI) et d'un test de jugement situationnel (SJT) ont été calculés dans le service commercial d'une entreprise publique iranienne du secteur automobile. SI et SJT présentent tous les deux une validité concurrente avec la performance professionnelle (pour N = 101, r = .28 et .23 respectivement; sign. à .05). Toutefois, seul le SI bénéficie d'une validité incrémentielle par rapport au SJT dans la prédiction de la performance professionnelle. En outre, le SI contrôle totalement la relation entre le SJT et le critère. Les deux méthodes ne diffèrent pas significativement dans l'évaluation de la motivation au travail, de l'équité perçue ou de l'anxiété. Néanmoins les salariés préféraient le SI au SJT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".