Literature DB >> 9119795

Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions.

D Chan1, N Schmitt.   

Abstract

On the basis of a distinction between test content and method of testing, the present study examined several conceptually and practically important effects relating race, reading comprehension, method of assessment, face validity perceptions, and performance on a situational judgement test using a sample of 241 psychology undergraduates (113 Blacks and 128 Whites). Results showed that the Black-White differences in situational judgment test performance and face validity reactions to the test were substantially smaller in the video-based method of testing than in the paper-and-pencil method. The Race x Method interaction effect on test performance was attributable to differences in reading comprehension and face validity reactions associated with race and method of testing. Implications of the findings were discussed in the context of research on adverse impact and examinee test reactions.

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9119795     DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.143

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Psychol        ISSN: 0021-9010


  12 in total

1.  Creating a Novel Video Vignette Stroke Preparedness Outcome Measure Using a Community-Based Participatory Approach.

Authors:  Lesli E Skolarus; Jillian B Murphy; Mackenzie Dome; Marc A Zimmerman; Sarah Bailey; Sophronia Fowlkes; Lewis B Morgenstern
Journal:  Health Promot Pract       Date:  2014-11-03

2.  Social emotional information processing in adults: Development and psychometrics of a computerized video assessment in healthy controls and aggressive individuals.

Authors:  Emil F Coccaro; Jennifer R Fanning; Eliana Fisher; Laurel Couture; Royce J Lee
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 3.222

3.  Development and Validation of a Bilingual Stroke Preparedness Assessment Instrument.

Authors:  Lesli E Skolarus; Kathleen M Mazor; Brisa N Sánchez; Mackenzie Dome; José Biller; Lewis B Morgenstern
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 7.914

4.  Using game-like animations of geometric shapes to simulate social interactions: An evaluation of group score differences.

Authors:  Matt I Brown; Andrew B Speer; Andrew P Tenbrink; Christopher F Chabris
Journal:  Int J Sel Assess       Date:  2022-01-23

5.  Does the UKCAT predict performance on exit from medical school? A national cohort study.

Authors:  R K MacKenzie; J A Cleland; D Ayansina; S Nicholson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Influence of response instructions and response format on applicant perceptions of a situational judgement test for medical school selection.

Authors:  Wendy E De Leng; Karen M Stegers-Jager; Marise Ph Born; Axel P N Themmen
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 2.463

7.  Evaluating the validity of an integrity-based situational judgement test for medical school admissions.

Authors:  Adrian Husbands; Mark J Rodgerson; Jon Dowell; Fiona Patterson
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 2.463

8.  Stroke Ready Intervention: Community Engagement to Decrease Prehospital Delay.

Authors:  Lesli E Skolarus; Marc A Zimmerman; Sarah Bailey; Mackenzie Dome; Jillian B Murphy; Christina Kobrossi; Stephan U Dombrowski; James F Burke; Lewis B Morgenstern
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 5.501

9.  Why Do Situational Interviews Predict Performance? Is it Saying How You Would Behave or Knowing How You Should Behave?

Authors:  Janneke K Oostrom; Klaus G Melchers; Pia V Ingold; Martin Kleinmann
Journal:  J Bus Psychol       Date:  2015-06-09

10.  Integrity situational judgement test for medical school selection: judging 'what to do' versus 'what not to do'.

Authors:  Wendy E de Leng; Karen M Stegers-Jager; Marise Ph Born; Axel P N Themmen
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 6.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.