Table of Contents
Abstract
The Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW) is a psychological instrument originally developed in German by Gatzka & Volmer (2017) to assess individual knowledge regarding teamwork effectiveness. The test comprises 12 hypothetical situation descriptions, each featuring four behavioral response options. The English translation of the SJT-TW was developed using the rigorous TRAPD procedure (Harkness, 2003) to ensure high-quality cross-cultural equivalence. A pilot study involving a small sample provided preliminary data on item and test score properties, suggesting the translated version functions similarly to the original German scale.
The typical administration involves a forced-choice format where test-takers select both the best and worst solution for each scenario, yielding a total test score ranging from -24 to +24. Results from the initial English pilot study, which used a shortened format only asking for the best option, indicated a low internal consistency ($alpha = .52$), which is common for Situational Judgement Tests (SJTs). Due to limited initial validity evidence for the translated version, the English SJT-TW is currently recommended strictly for research settings.
Keywords
Teamwork, Team effectiveness, Situational Judgement Test (SJT), Personnel selection, TRAPD procedure, Organizational psychology, Team spirit.
Authors
Original Scale Authors: Gatzka, T., & Volmer, J. (2017). Translation/Pilot Study Authors: Freudenstein, Remmert, Reznik, Krumm (responsible for the English translation and pilot study documentation).
[quads id=5]
Purpose
The primary purpose of the SJT-TW is to measure an individual’s conceptual knowledge concerning effective behaviors in team settings. SJTs are traditionally employed in personnel selection as low-fidelity simulations that sample knowledge about appropriate conduct in work-related situations. The SJT-TW specifically targets the skills and knowledge necessary for successful team interaction and performance.
The test is suitable for application across various occupational and educational contexts, independent of whether participants are currently working in a specific team or on a specific team task. The original development (Gatzka & Volmer, 2017) demonstrated its predictive power for supervisor-rated contextual and teamwork performance. However, until a proper validation study is conducted for the English translation, its use should be limited to academic research focused on teamwork effectiveness or the underlying psychological processes of SJTs themselves.
Construct
The SJT-TW assesses teamwork effectiveness, which is defined as a complex set of behaviors rather than a single, narrow construct. The scale development was guided by a working model (Gatzka & Volmer, 2017) that synthesized results from key teamwork reviews (e.g., Salas et al., 2005; Rousseau et al., 2006).
The working model identified 30 critical behaviors relevant for teamwork success, which are grouped into seven distinct dimensions:
- Evaluation of the operational framework.
- Planning and organization.
- Cooperation.
- Communication.
- Monitoring and adaptation.
- Help behavior and support.
- Motivation and cohesion.
Validity
For the original German SJT-TW, strong validity evidence exists, showing correlations with related constructs and prediction of job-related criteria, such as supervisor-rated contextual and teamwork performance. This suggests the original test is a valuable measure aligned with contemporary conceptualizations of teamwork.
For the English translation, no formal validity evidence is currently available, as the initial assessment was based solely on a small pilot study (N=20). Although preliminary results suggested item and test score properties were similar to the German version, a full validation study is required. The current English version is therefore considered a research instrument and should not be deployed in high-stakes assessment settings.
Reliability
The reliability of the English SJT-TW was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, yielding a coefficient of $alpha = .52$ for the 12 items. While this value is generally considered insufficient for a psychological scale, it aligns with typical findings for SJTs, which often exhibit low internal consistency (Catano et al., 2012).
The low reliability reflects the ambiguous factor structure inherent in most SJTs, as they measure knowledge across diverse behavioral domains rather than a unidimensional trait. Notably, the reliability is similar to the employee sample reported in the original German validation study ($alpha = .44$). Item 11 showed a negative item-total correlation, which may be an artifact of the small sample size, but warrants exclusion if the finding persists in larger future studies.
Factor Analysis
The item analysis for the SJT-TW presumes a single overall factor structure, consistent with the recommendation of the original authors (Gatzka & Volmer, 2017). Although Gatzka and Volmer tentatively proposed a two-factor structure—Factor 1 (Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12) and Factor 2 (Items 1, 4, 8, 11)—they advised against interpreting these factors separately due to the small number of items and low internal consistencies.
Due to the extremely small sample size in the English pilot study (N=20), a meaningful investigation of the factor structure was not possible. Consequently, researchers should calculate and interpret only the total unweighted sum score, which ranges from -24 to +24 for the full version (best and worst responses) or -12 to +12 for the shortened version (best response only).
Instrument
Test Type: Situational Judgement Test (SJT).
Format: Forced-choice format. Test-takers are typically required to select the best (+) and the worst (-) behavioral option out of four for each of the 12 scenarios. The pilot study used a shortened version requiring only the selection of the best option.
Language Available: German (Original); English (Translated/Pilot version).
Population Group: Employees and students (suitable for research contexts).
Age Group: Adults (Pilot sample M = 35.25 years, range 25-53).
Population Details: The English pilot sample consisted of 20 native speakers (American English) recruited via Amazon MTurk, with 75% gainfully employed.
Test Methodology: Self-administered questionnaire format, suitable for paper-pencil or Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI). The full test duration is approximately 10 minutes.
Keywords
Teamwork, Organizational behavior, Team effectiveness, Situational Judgement Test, Low-fidelity simulation, Personnel selection, Psychological assessment, Survey translation, TRAPD procedure.
[quads id=5]
Authors
Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.
Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.
Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content. Data archive available at: https://osf.io/zgank/.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The original German scale (SJT-TW) was developed by Gatzka & Volmer in 2017. Specific information regarding permissions or fees for the English translation and pilot data must be obtained by consulting the authors of the translation (Freudenstein, Remmert, Reznik, Krumm) or the associated data archive. The English translation pilot data were collected in 2019.
Reference’s
- Gatzka, T., & Volmer, J. (2017). Situational Judgment Test für Teamarbeit (SJT-TA). In Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen.
- Harkness, J. A. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In J. A. Harkness, F. J. R. Van de Vijver, & P. P. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 35–50). John Wiley & Sons.
- Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., & Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational judgment tests: Consistency of the factor structure and incremental validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 770–784.
- McDaniel, M. A., & Nguyen, N. T. (2001). Situational judgment tests: A review of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 295–324.
- Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative measure of performance in situational tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 724–731.
[quads id=5]
Items of the Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW)
IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.
Table 1
Items of the English Version of the SJT-TW
| Situation | Items | Given Answers | |
| 1 | You are temporarily subjected to personal stress that also affects your occupational activity. A briefly acquainted colleague asks you about the reason for your decline in performance and offers help with your task. | What should you do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | You confirm an increase in personal stress and accept the help. | ||
| b) | You do not mention your personal problems, but accept the help. | ||
| c) | You explain your specific situation and ask for help with your task. | ||
| d) | You thank your colleague for the feedback but politely decline the offer. | ||
| 2 | Your team has clearly allocated all areas of responsibility. However, you incidentally notice that some team members in another area are challenged by a task that you have experience in. | What should you do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | You tell your colleagues about your experience and offer advisory support. | ||
| b) | You mention your expertise and offer active support. | ||
| c) | You ask whether your experience or advice is desired and if so, when. | ||
| d) | Your respect your colleagues’ responsibilities and stay out of it. | ||
| 3 | Your team has made a lot of progress working on a complex task when some unforeseen developments occur. Therefore, your tediously achieved results are no longer completely up to date. | What should your team do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | Slight shortcomings will be tolerated due to the advanced progress of the work. | ||
| b) | The team asks the customer or superior for their assessment of the situation. | ||
| c) | Team members immediately discuss possible consequences in a meeting. | ||
| d) | Changes are retrospectively implemented through intensive additional work. | ||
| 4 | You notice a sudden but continuous decrease in performance in one of your team members, whom you have experienced as competent and reliable. Other sources report that this colleague currently has some personal problems. | What should you do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | You and the other team members discuss how to support this colleague. | ||
| b) | You respect your colleague’s privacy and do not get involved in private matters. | ||
| c) | You help your colleague without asking questions. | ||
| d) | You ask your colleague if they want to talk about their problems. | ||
| 5 | Some of your colleagues discuss various aspects of a team task during a meeting. Your area of responsibility is not the focus of their discussion, which is why you hold back and refrain from partaking in it. | What should you do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | You mentally prepare the discussion points that you wanted to address. | ||
| b) | You use the opportunity to broaden your knowledge about other parts of the task. | ||
| c) | You carefully steer the conversation towards a more familiar topic that you can engage in. | ||
| d) | You attentively look for information that could be important for your area of responsibility. | ||
| 6 | You are transferred to an already existing team. During a brief introduction, your contact person tells you that all team members have their own area of responsibility. Without providing any further details, your contact person instructs you on your own area of responsibility. | What should you do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | You limit your questions to your area of responsibility, as nothing else should concern you. | ||
| b) | You hold back your curiosity and carefully listen to your contact person’s explanations. | ||
| c) | You decide to become familiar with the other areas of responsibility on your own after the conversation. | ||
| d) | You ask for the basic workflows and interdependencies in the team. | ||
| 7 | You have to inform another team member about a complex issue from your area of responsibility. It is of utmost importance for your team’s success that the other person takes note of your concern and that no uncertainties are left. | What should you do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | You prepare a timesaving summary that you personally deliver. | ||
| b) | You send a detailed report and ask for an acknowledgement of receipt. | ||
| c) | You arrange a personal meeting with the other team member. | ||
| d) | You send a message and explicitly request the other team member to contact you if any uncertainties are left. | ||
| 8 | You incidentally notice that another team member struggles to finish their work on time. You have already completed your tasks. However, you want to double check your work and, if necessary, improve some details before the deadline. | What should you do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | You ask the team member in a confidential conversation whether they need help. | ||
| b) | You contain yourself because you do not want the team member to appear incompetent. | ||
| c) | You carefully address your observation in the next team meeting. | ||
| d) | You finish your own tasks first before offering your help. | ||
| 9 | Together with your team members, you are setting objectives for each member for an upcoming task. | What should your team do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | The team sets objectives that are positive, clearly defined and easily verifiable. | ||
| b) | The team sets objectives that are specific, challenging and agreed upon by the whole team. | ||
| c) | The team sets objectives that are moderately difficult and comprehensible to the whole team. | ||
| d) | The team sets objectives that are easily attainable, open and flexible concerning time management. | ||
| 10 | You are working on a task that is mainly in your area of responsibility. When you present your intended procedure during a meeting, some team members from other areas speak up and add suggestions for changes and adaptations. | What should you do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | You take note of suggestions and discuss them with everyone involved. | ||
| b) | You reflect on what changes might be sensible and ask for details. | ||
| c) | You politely point out that you have a better overview of the task due to your expertise. | ||
| d) | You try to include as many of the suggested changes as possible in your plan. | ||
| 11 | Due to external circumstances, your team was unable to finish an important task on time. Since every team member has given their very best, there is considerable disappointment. When a new task comes up, you notice that low morale and poor motivation are impairing the team. | What should you do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | You remind your team of past successes to spark new motivation. | ||
| b) | You address your concerns in front of the whole team and encourage a discussion. | ||
| c) | You ask for a team meeting to put the failure behind you. | ||
| d) | You give the other team members the time to regain their motivation. | ||
| 12 | Together with your team members, you are planning how to tackle an upcoming task. The team’s success in mastering this challenge depends on several factors, some of which are difficult to predict. | What should your team do [and not do] in such a situation? | |
| a) | The team discusses all possible developments in advance and works out a strategy for each of them. | ||
| b) | The planning proceeds in small steps in order to allow quick adaptations. | ||
| c) | The team waits with further planning until all uncertainties are eliminated. | ||
| d) | The team focuses especially on currently available facts for the planning. | ||
Cite this article
Mohammed looti (2025). Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW). Psychological Scales & Instruments Database. Retrieved from https://db.arabpsychology.com/scales/teamwork-situational-judgement-test-sjt-tw/
Mohammed looti. "Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW)." Psychological Scales & Instruments Database, 26 Oct. 2025, https://db.arabpsychology.com/scales/teamwork-situational-judgement-test-sjt-tw/.
Mohammed looti. "Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW)." Psychological Scales & Instruments Database, 2025. https://db.arabpsychology.com/scales/teamwork-situational-judgement-test-sjt-tw/.
Mohammed looti (2025) 'Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW)', Psychological Scales & Instruments Database. Available at: https://db.arabpsychology.com/scales/teamwork-situational-judgement-test-sjt-tw/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW)," Psychological Scales & Instruments Database, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, October, 2025.
Mohammed looti. Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW). Psychological Scales & Instruments Database. 2025;vol(issue):pages.