Measuring moral disengagement with a situational judgment test: Advancing the assessment of an important workplace construct

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Fisher ◽  
Stephen Good ◽  
Margaret J. Toich ◽  
Elizabeth Schutt
Keyword(s):  
Moral Disengagement ◽  
Situational Judgment Test ◽  
Situational Judgment

scholarly journals Effects of Honesty Test using Situational Judgment Test Format on Task Performance and counterproductive work behavior

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 541-561
Author(s):  
EunA Kwon ◽  
JongGoo Lee
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Moral Disengagement ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Counterproductive Work Behavior ◽  
Equation Model ◽  
Work Behavior ◽  
Test Format ◽  
Situational Judgment Test ◽  
Situational Judgment

The purposes of this research were 1) to identify criterion-related validity of the developed Honesty test using situation judgment test format and 2) to test mediating role of moral disengagement process including self-sanction. For these purpose, the situational judgment test measuring sub-constructs (i.e., sincerity, fairness, greed avoidance and modesty) of honesty-humility factor in HEXACO model(Lee & Ashton, 2004) was developed. eria(i.e., counterproductive work behavior, task performance and contextual performance). Total 365 employees(male, N=170, 46.58%; female, N=195, 53.42%) were used in the study. The Honesty test developed in the study included 24 items(i.e., 6 items for each 4 sub-constructs). The criterion-related validity analyses results showed that the Honesty test using situational judgment test format had significant correlations with counterproductive work behavior(r = -.49) and task performance(r = .39). The results of structural equation model revealed that the effects of honesty on counterproductive work behavior was mediated by moral disengagement process and the direct effect of honesty on counterproductive work behavior was also significant. Overall goodness of fit indexes of this model were favorable except for the chi-square value(χ2(32) = 50.44, p = .0202, CFI = .990, TLI = .986, RMSEA = .040). Limitations of the study and directions for future study were discussed.

The Team Role Test: Development and validation of a team role knowledge situational judgment test.

2008 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Troy V. Mumford ◽  
Chad H. Van Iddekinge ◽  
Frederick P. Morgeson ◽  
Michael A. Campion
Keyword(s):  
Test Development ◽  
Situational Judgment Test ◽  
Situational Judgment ◽  
Development And Validation

Development of a Situational Judgment Test to Predict Unethical Behavior

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janneke K. Oostrom ◽  
Henk T. Van der Molen ◽  
Alec W. Serlie ◽  
Marise Ph. Born
Keyword(s):  
Unethical Behavior ◽  
Situational Judgment Test ◽  
Situational Judgment

SME trait effectiveness disagreement in situational judgment test scoring

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura G. Barron ◽  
Stephan J. Motowidlo ◽  
Margaret E. Beier ◽  
Tracy Kantrowitz ◽  
Courtney L. Holladay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Situational Judgment Test ◽  
Situational Judgment ◽  
Test Scoring

Design of a Situational Judgment Test for Preclinical Interprofessional Collaboration

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik W. Black ◽  
Bailey Schrock ◽  
Matthew S. Prewett ◽  
Amy V. Blue
Keyword(s):  
Interprofessional Collaboration ◽  
Situational Judgment Test ◽  
Situational Judgment

scholarly journals Development and validation of a HEXACO situational judgment test

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janneke K. Oostrom ◽  
Reinout E. de Vries ◽  
Mariska de Wit
Keyword(s):  
Situational Judgment Test ◽  
Situational Judgment ◽  
Development And Validation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document