Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:28:22.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It's Time To Examine the Nomological Net of Job Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2016

W. Jackeline Torres  and
Margaret E. Beier
W. Jackeline Torres*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Rice University
Margaret E. Beier
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Rice University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to W. Jackeline Torres, Department of Psychology, MS-25, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005. E-mail: jackietorres@rice.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Lievens and Motowidlo (2016) argue compellingly that situational judgment tests (SJTs) measure job-relevant general domain knowledge, conceptualized as implicit trait policies (ITPs). ITPs are defined as a person's knowledge about the utility of expressing certain traits. They develop through the feedback a person receives when acting in accordance with their trait profiles in different environments (work, life, leisure). Positive feedback reinforces the knowledge that behavior in accordance with one's own traits is appropriate, and negative feedback reinforces the knowledge that an approach that differs from one's trait tendencies may be more effective. As such, ITPs represent a person's knowledge about the effectiveness of behaviors across a variety of contexts.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 51 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beier, M. E., Young, C. K., & Villado, A. J. (in press). Job knowledge: Its definition, development, and measurement. In Ones, D. S., Anderson, N., Viswesvaran, C., & Sinangil, H. K. (Eds.), The handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitude, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340–362.Google Scholar
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), 54–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lievens, F., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2016). Situational judgment tests: From measures of situational judgment to measures of general domain knowledge. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8, 540–551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 63–91.Google Scholar
Motowidlo, S. J., & Beier, M. E. (2010). Differentiating specific job knowledge from implicit trait policies in procedural knowledge measured by a situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (2), 321–333.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.Google Scholar
Stemler, S. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Using situational judgment tests to measure practical intelligence. In Weekley, J. A. & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 107–131). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1993). The g-ocentric view of intelligence and job performance is wrong. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50 (11), 912–927.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 71–95.Google Scholar