Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW)

Abstract

The Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW) (original German: Situational Judgment Test für Teamarbeit; Gatzka & Volmer, 2017) is an evidence-based, low-fidelity simulation designed to evaluate individual teamwork effectiveness and practical collaborative judgment. Grounded in contemporary models of team effectiveness and organizational behavior (Marks et al., 2001; Salas et al., 2005; Rousseau et al., 2006), the instrument consists of 12 distinct, workplace-relevant situational scenarios. Each scenario is paired with four predetermined behavioral response options, designed to reflect varying degrees of effectiveness across critical collaborative dimensions, including communication, task coordination, conflict management, interpersonal support, and collective goal orientation. The instrument is administered via either computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI) or paper-pencil formats, typically requiring 7 to 10 minutes to complete.

The English version of the SJT-TW was adapted from the original German test using the rigorous Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting, and Documentation (TRAPD) cross-cultural adaptation methodology (Harkness, 2003). Psychometric investigations indicate that the SJT-TW exhibits distributional properties comparable to the original instrument, with an observed internal consistency coefficient of Cronbach’s α = .52 in a pilot validation sample (N = 20), aligning closely with the employee sample in the original validation study (α = .44; Gatzka & Volmer, 2017) and broader meta-analytic trends in situational judgment testing (Catano et al., 2012). While the German parent instrument demonstrated robust criterion-related validity, predicting supervisor-rated teamwork performance and contextual performance, the English adaptation serves primarily as an open-access research tool for examining collaborative decision-making, implicit trait policies, and the psychological mechanisms underlying situational responding. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric and theoretical analysis of the SJT-TW, including its construct definitions, administrative protocols, structural dimensionality, and scoring rubrics.

Keywords

Situational Judgement Test, SJT-TW, teamwork effectiveness, team processes, industrial and organizational psychology, personnel selection, low-fidelity simulation, collaborative competence, implicit trait policies, situational judgment, psychometrics, TRAPD translation

Authors

The original German instrument (Situational Judgment Test für Teamarbeit [SJT-TA]) was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by:

• Torsten Gatzka — Department of Psychology, Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.
• Judith Volmer — Professor of Work and Organizational Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.

The cross-cultural adaptation and English translation via the TRAPD methodology were conducted by Torsten Gatzka, Judith Volmer, and collaborating psychometric researchers in Work and Organizational Psychology, with data archived on the Open Science Framework (OSF).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW) is to measure declarative, procedural, and tacit knowledge regarding effective interpersonal and task-focused behaviors within workplace team settings. Modern organizational structures rely heavily on cross-functional, self-managing, and interdependent teams. Consequently, organizational researchers and human resource practitioners require valid, reliable, and standardized instruments capable of discerning whether an individual possesses the practical judgment necessary to navigate the complex social and task dynamics inherent to collaborative environments.

Theoretical and Practical Rationale

Traditional assessment methodologies for collaborative competencies predominantly rely on self-report personality inventories (e.g., measures of Agreeableness, Extraversion, or emotional intelligence) or high-fidelity behavioral simulations (e.g., assessment center leaderless group discussions). While self-report inventories are economical, they suffer from notable susceptibility to social desirability bias, faking, and self-enhancement, particularly in high-stakes personnel selection settings. Conversely, assessment centers offer high fidelity and ecological validity but impose substantial financial, administrative, and temporal burdens.

Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) occupy a methodological middle ground as low-fidelity simulations (Motowidlo et al., 1990; Weekley et al., 2015). They present respondents with realistic, context-rich workplace dilemmas and require them to evaluate behavioral courses of action. SJTs capture applied procedural knowledge (“knowing how”) rather than abstract declarative knowledge (“knowing that”) or self-perceptions of personality traits. The SJT-TW was developed specifically to address the scarcity of open-access, psychometrically documented situational judgment tests dedicated to team effectiveness.

Research and Applied Applications

The SJT-TW serves several distinct purposes across academic research and applied organizational practice:

• Organizational Research: The instrument facilitates empirical investigation into how collaborative knowledge interacts with personality traits, cognitive ability, and team-level climate to predict collective outcomes. Furthermore, the test serves as a standardized stimulus for basic research on SJT response processes, such as the debate over whether SJTs capture context-dependent processing or general, context-independent implicit trait policies (Lievens & Motowidlo, 2016; Schäpers et al., 2019).
• Training Needs Analysis and Team Development: In professional development contexts, the SJT-TW serves as a diagnostic tool to identify baseline team competencies, uncover common behavioral biases (e.g., avoidance of conflict vs. constructive mediation), and structure targeted intervention curricula for teams undergoing transition or distress.
• Personnel Selection and Assessment (Research Version): While the original German SJT-TA demonstrated predictive power for supervisor-rated contextual and teamwork performance, the English adaptation is recommended primarily for research settings and low-stakes assessment until comprehensive criterion validation across diverse English-speaking organizational samples is completed.

Psychological Construct

The central construct measured by the SJT-TW is teamwork effectiveness, conceptualized as an individual’s capability to choose and prioritize behaviors that facilitate goal attainment, maintain functional interpersonal relationships, and adapt flexibly to emergent team demands. Teamwork is not a unitary, narrow psychological trait; rather, it is a multifaceted behavioral competency comprising interrelated cognitive, behavioral, and affective processes (Salas et al., 2005; Rousseau et al., 2006).

Gatzka and Volmer (2017) conducted an integrative synthesis of foundational teamwork taxonomies (notably Stevens & Campion, 1994; O’Neil et al., 1997; Marks et al., 2001; Salas et al., 2005) to establish a comprehensive working model consisting of 30 specific collaborative behaviors. These behaviors coalesce into seven broad dimensions of teamwork effectiveness, which underpin the scenarios of the SJT-TW:

1. Evaluation of the Operational Framework

This dimension encompasses an individual’s awareness of the organizational environment, team boundaries, role definitions, and workflow constraints. Effective team members recognize structural dependencies, respect assigned spheres of responsibility, and proactively seek to clarify systemic interdependencies before taking action that might disrupt downstream processes.

2. Planning and Organization

Collaborative planning involves the formulation of actionable strategies, pacing, milestone setting, and resource allocation. High effectiveness in this domain entails establishing specific, challenging, yet flexible goals (Locke & Latham, 2002) that are collectively understood and agreed upon by all team members, as well as breaking complex, ambiguous tasks into iterative stages that permit continuous adjustment.

3. Cooperation

Cooperation reflects the active alignment of individual efforts toward superordinate team objectives. This includes psychological commitment to collective deliverables, willingness to subordinate individual recognition for the common good, and avoiding unilateral work practices that diverge from agreed-upon project blueprints without team consultation.

4. Communication

Effective team communication involves the unambiguous, timely, and bidirectional transmission of information. It requires choosing appropriate communication modalities for the complexity of the message (e.g., scheduling a synchronous personal discussion for complex, high-stakes coordination rather than relying on brief asynchronous text messages), ensuring mutual understanding, and providing structured, task-focused feedback while avoiding interpersonal hostility.

5. Monitoring and Adaptation

This dimension mirrors the regulatory mechanisms described in team cybernetics. Effective collaborators monitor progress, detect external environmental changes or emergent setbacks, and facilitate collective reflexivity. Rather than clinging rigidly to outdated plans or ignoring deviations, effective individuals initiate structured discussions to adjust timelines, reassess risk, and redistribute tasks collaboratively.

6. Helping Behavior and Support

Also recognized in the literature as backup behavior (Porter et al., 2003), this dimension involves providing instrumental, operational, and emotional assistance to colleagues experiencing overload, illness, or skill deficits. Highly effective support involves balancing the provision of assistance with respect for colleague autonomy and one’s own core deliverables, ensuring that targeted aid does not compromise other essential deadlines or embarrass the recipient.

7. Motivation and Cohesion

This affective-interpersonal dimension pertains to the maintenance of team morale, psychological safety, and collective efficacy. It includes constructively managing interpersonal friction, facilitating dispute resolution through neutral mediation, encouraging reticent or marginalized colleagues to contribute their expertise, and reinforcing collective identity following setbacks or external criticism.

Theoretical Framework

The construction and behavioral calibration of the SJT-TW are anchored in two distinct yet intersecting theoretical frameworks: the Temporally Based Framework of Team Processes (Marks et al., 2001; Salas et al., 2005) and Implicit Trait Policy (ITP) Theory of situational judgment (Motowidlo et al., 2006; Lievens & Motowidlo, 2016).

Team Process Architecture

In their influential taxonomy, Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) conceptualized team performance as an ongoing series of input-process-output (I-P-O) cycles occurring across distinct operational episodes. Team processes are categorized into three temporal phases:

• Transition Phase Processes: Actions directed toward mission analysis, goal specification, strategy formulation, and environmental scanning. In the SJT-TW, transition processes are captured by scenarios addressing ambiguous initial assignments (e.g., Situation 12), goal setting (e.g., Situation 9), and orientation within newly formed teams (e.g., Situation 6).
• Action Phase Processes: Behaviors directly linked to goal accomplishment, including monitoring progress toward goals, systems monitoring, team monitoring and backup behavior, and internal coordination. The SJT-TW assesses action processes through scenarios involving workload imbalances (e.g., Situation 6), sudden colleague illness during impending deadlines (e.g., Situation 2), and personal assistance vs. individual deadline management (e.g., Situation 8).
• Interpersonal Processes: Ongoing behavioral mechanisms that operate throughout both transition and action phases to manage relational dynamics, including conflict management, motivation and confidence building, and affect regulation. In the SJT-TW, these are instantiated in scenarios confronting disruptive behavior (e.g., Situation 1), interpersonal conflict between peers (e.g., Situation 3), and preserving team cohesion following external failure or harsh client feedback (e.g., Situation 7 and Situation 11).

Salas et al. (2005) complemented this architecture with their “Big Five” model of teamwork, positing that effective teams rely on team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behavior, adaptability, and team orientation, coordinated via shared mental models, closed-loop communication, and mutual trust. The SJT-TW operationalizes these theoretical tenets into concrete behavioral dilemmas where the test-taker must choose courses of action that preserve the functioning of these foundational mechanisms.

Implicit Trait Policy Theory and Behavioral Judgment

From a psychometric perspective, Situational Judgment Tests assess procedural knowledge of effective behaviors. Motowidlo, Hooper, and Jackson (2006) formulated Implicit Trait Policy (ITP) Theory, proposing that individuals evaluate SJT response options using intuitive beliefs about the utility of specific trait-expressive behaviors in social environments. When respondents evaluate options, their choices reflect an implicit understanding that expressing certain trait-related behaviors (such as proactive communication, agreeable mediation, or conscientious diligence) leads to positive social and instrumental outcomes.

Consequently, the SJT-TW presents response options that systematically contrast highly effective behavioral choices (e.g., proactive, collaborative, solution-focused communication) with suboptimal alternatives reflecting passive withdrawal, aggressive escalation, premature supervisor appeals, or self-sacrificing behavior that jeopardizes core deliverables. Through this mechanism, the instrument gauges an individual’s mental model of workplace collaboration.

Validity

Evaluating the validity of a Situational Judgment Test requires examining content validity, structural fidelity, and criterion-related performance relationships across linguistic adaptations.

Content and Translation Validity (The TRAPD Process)

The English version of the SJT-TW was adapted from the German instrument using the TRAPD methodology (Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting, and Documentation; Harkness, 2003). Rather than relying on simple back-translation—which frequently produces unnatural phrasing and fails to capture contextual colloquialisms—the adaptation process involved:

1. Translation: Two independent parallel translations into English were produced by researchers specializing in industrial-organizational assessment and fluent in both German and English.
2. Review: The independent drafts were synthesized and reviewed in a joint session to resolve discrepancies, with emphasis placed on retaining the original behavioral nuances and realistic workplace tone.
3. Adjudication: A senior expert in psychological assessment and SJT construction evaluated the merged version, adjudicating remaining linguistic ambiguities to ensure conceptual equivalence.
4. Pretesting: The refined instrument was pretested with native English speakers (N = 20; Amazon Mechanical Turk, US sample) to assess item readability, cognitive comprehension, and distribution of responses.
5. Documentation: All translation revisions, scoring algorithms, and pilot data were formally documented and archived in the Open Science Framework (OSF repository: https://osf.io/zgank/).

Criterion-Related Validity of the Parent Instrument

In the original validation study of the German SJT-TA (Gatzka & Volmer, 2017), the instrument was administered to both university student samples and employed professionals. Key empirical findings established strong evidence for criterion-related validity:

• Contextual Performance: The SJT-TA demonstrated statistically significant correlations with supervisor ratings of contextual performance (organizational citizenship behavior).
• Teamwork Performance: The test exhibited significant predictive validity for objective and supervisor-evaluated teamwork skills, demonstrating that individuals who identified optimal SJT solutions were rated by managers as displaying higher interpersonal effectiveness and collaborative task execution.
• Incremental Validity: When evaluated against traditional cognitive ability metrics and general personality traits (Big Five), the situational judgment scores accounted for incremental variance in teamwork performance criteria, supporting the theoretical proposition that SJTs capture unique procedural and tacit interpersonal knowledge.

Validity Considerations for the English Adaptation

In the English pilot pretesting study (N = 20; 40% female; mean age = 35.25 years, SD = 9.21; 75% gainfully employed), item means, standard deviations, and skewness coefficients largely mirrored those observed in the German employee cohort. However, because the English pilot study utilized a small convenience sample, researchers recommend that the current English translation be employed primarily as an empirical research instrument. High-stakes personnel selection applications should be preceded by comprehensive local criterion-validation studies.

Reliability

The reliability of Situational Judgment Tests presents unique psychometric characteristics that differ substantially from traditional homogeneous rating scales.

Internal Consistency and the SJT “Reliability Paradox”

In the English pretesting sample (N = 20), the internal consistency of the 12-item SJT-TW, evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, was α = .52. In the original German validation study by Gatzka and Volmer (2017), internal consistency across an employee sample was similarly modest at α = .44.

While an alpha coefficient below .70 is typically deemed substandard for traditional unidimensional psychometric scales, such values are standard and expected in situational judgment testing literature (Catano et al., 2012; Kasten & Freund, 2016; McDaniel et al., 2016). This phenomenon—often referred to as the “SJT reliability paradox”—stems directly from the intentional multidimensionality and situational specificity of the items. Each scenario presents a distinct confluence of interpersonal conflict, resource strain, leadership ambiguity, and personal ethics. Because individual items tap different combinations of the seven teamwork subdimensions, item-intercorrelations are naturally attenuated.

Item-Total Statistics and Metric Characteristics

In the English pilot dataset, item-total correlations (r_it) averaged .22 (ranging from −.22 to .49), which was slightly higher than the average item-total correlation reported in the original German validation (r_it = .17). A single item (Item 11, addressing the scenario where a supervisor attributes team credit solely to an individual) exhibited an anomalous negative item-total correlation (r_it = −.22) within the pilot cohort. Psychometricians note that this anomaly is likely an artifact of the small pilot sample size (N = 20); however, if item 11 maintains a negative or zero item-total correlation in larger follow-up studies, its inclusion in composite scoring should be re-evaluated.

Alternative Reliability Formulations

Given the known limitations of Cronbach’s alpha when applied to multidimensional low-fidelity simulations, researchers emphasize that test-retest reliability (stability across time) and parallel-form reliability provide more theoretically appropriate estimates of measurement precision for SJTs. Previous meta-analyses (e.g., Catano et al., 2012) demonstrate that SJTs routinely demonstrate moderate-to-high test-retest stability (r_tt ≥ .70–.80) despite modest internal consistency metrics, affirming that the underlying procedural knowledge assessed is temporally stable.

Factor Analysis

The latent structure of Situational Judgment Tests remains one of the most vigorously debated subjects within industrial-organizational psychometrics. Because SJTs are constructed to sample heterogeneous behavioral domains within contextualized vignettes, their covariance structures rarely conform to clean simple structures under Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Unidimensional vs. Multidimensional Structuring

In the primary psychometric development of the SJT-TA, Gatzka and Volmer (2017) explored both unidimensional and multidimensional latent representations:

• Two-Factor Exploratory Model: An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) initially suggested a two-dimensional solution:
  • Factor 1 (Task Coordination & Operational Regulation): Comprising Items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12, this latent dimension primarily loads on task-focused coordination, operational framework evaluation, workflow management, and strategic adaptation.
  • Factor 2 (Interpersonal Support & Relational Dynamics): Comprising Items 1, 4, 8, and 11, this factor centers on interpersonal stress, peer support, managing colleague distress, and credit sharing.
• Empirical Limitations of the Subdimensions: Although the two-factor model demonstrated theoretical plausibility, Gatzka and Volmer (2017) observed that the subscales demonstrated insufficient independent internal consistencies and high inter-factor latent correlation. Consequently, dividing the 12 items into distinct subscales risks substantial measurement error.
• Recommended Unidimensional Formulation: In alignment with standard psychometric recommendations for situational tests (McDaniel et al., 2016), the authors strongly advocated for treating the SJT-TW as a structurally general measure of overall teamwork judgment, computing a single composite sum score across all 12 scenarios.

Pilot Structural Findings

Due to the small sample size of the English pilot study (N = 20), formal CFA or EFA modeling could not be reliably executed. The observed overall composite distribution in the pilot study was mildly left-skewed (Skewness = −1.04; Kurtosis = 0.37) with a mean sum score of 2.80 (SD = 3.02) under a −1 to +1 item scoring protocol. This distribution indicates that test-takers selected correct options significantly more frequently than counterproductive options, reflecting normal criterion discriminating power consistent with the German parent instrument.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The English version of the SJT-TW is structured as follows:

Test Overview

• Instrument Name: Teamwork Situational Judgement Test (SJT-TW) / Situational Judgment Test for Teamwork
• Parent Test: Situational Judgment Test für Teamarbeit (SJT-TA; Gatzka & Volmer, 2017)
• Assessment Type: Low-fidelity Situational Judgment Test (SJT) / Situational simulation
• Administration Format: Standardized paper-pencil questionnaire or Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing (CASI / Web-based)
• Target Construct: Teamwork effectiveness (collaborative procedural knowledge and judgment)
• Number of Items: 12 workplace scenario vignettes
• Number of Alternatives: 4 behavioral options per scenario (48 total behavioral options)
• Completion Time: Approximately 6 to 7 minutes (when selecting the single best option); approximately 10 minutes (when selecting both the best and worst options)

Administration Instructions

The test instructions vary slightly depending on whether the administration protocol asks participants for the best option only (shortened format) or both the best and worst options (full dual-response format):

Standard Instructions (Full Dual-Response Format):

“Below, 12 situations are described as they may occur in the occupational daily routine of teams or working groups. For each situation, four different behavioural options are presented.

Please pick the most [and least] suitable behaviour for each situation.

For some situations, it may be difficult for you to decide as certain details are not specified, you did not experience a similar situation before, or you consider some options very similar. However, please choose the alternative[s] that you generally take for the best [and worst] solution.

Please always select the best [and the worst] option for each situation. [Please do not indicate the same answer as the best and worst solution.] Please do not skip any situation.”

Format Clarification for Paper-Pencil Mode: When using a physical paper format, test administrators must include the sentence: “Please select exactly two response options for each situation. Mark (+) for the best solution and (−) for the worst solution.” (If using the single-choice format: “Please select exactly one response option for each situation.”)

Scoring Systems and Protocols

The SJT-TW supports two distinct scoring architectures depending on the administrative format selected:

• Protocol A: Single-Choice Format (Best Option Only):
  • Respondents choose only the single most effective action among the 4 options.
  • Scoring: Correct predefined best option = +1 point; Any incorrect or suboptimal option = 0 points (or alternately, selecting the worst option = −1 point and neutral options = 0 points, yielding an item score range of −1 to +1).
  • Total Score Range: 0 to 12 points (or −12 to +12 points under the bipolar scheme). Higher scores reflect greater alignment with expert consensus on effective teamwork.
• Protocol B: Full Dual-Choice Format (Best and Worst Options):
  • Respondents choose both the best (+) and worst (−) actions for each of the 12 scenarios.
  • Item Scoring:
    • Correctly identifying the predefined best option = +1 point
    • Correctly identifying the predefined worst option = +1 point
    • Erroneously identifying the predefined best option as the worst option = −1 point
    • Erroneously identifying the predefined worst option as the best option = −1 point
    • Selecting intermediate/neutral distractors = 0 points
  • Scenario Range: Each scenario yields a score from −2 to +2.
  • Total Scale Range: −24 to +24 points, calculated as the unweighted sum of all scenario scores.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original German instrument was published in 2017 (Gatzka & Volmer, 2017) within the open-access social science repository Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS). The cross-cultural English adaptation and corresponding pilot data were generated and made publicly accessible in 2019/2020.

The English version of the SJT-TW is an open-access, non-commercial psychological instrument. It is freely available for scientific research, academic instruction, and non-commercial organizational studies. Test items, scoring keys, and documentation are deposited and maintained on the Open Science Framework (OSF) under the repository identifier osf.io/zgank/. Commercial utilization, integration into proprietary commercial recruitment platforms, or redistribution for profit requires explicit prior written licensing and authorization from the original copyright holders (Torsten Gatzka and Judith Volmer).

References

• Catano, V. M., Brochu, A., & Lamerson, C. D. (2012). Assessing the characteristics of situational judgement tests using meta-analysis: A review of the situations, options, and scoring methods. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(3), 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00605.x
• Gatzka, T., & Volmer, J. (2017). Situational Judgment Test für Teamarbeit (SJT-TA). Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen (ZIS). https://doi.org/10.6102/zis255
• 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. 35–56). John Wiley & Sons.
• Kasten, N., & Freund, P. A. (2016). A meta-analysis on the reliability of situational judgement tests: Are we measuring test scores or method variance? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(3), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000252
• Lievens, F., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2016). Situational judgment tests: From measures of situational judgment to measures of general domain knowledge. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.71
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
• Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
• McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. (2007). Situational judgment tests, personality, and general mental ability: An examination of the full predictive model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.346
• McDaniel, M. A., List, J. A., & Kepes, S. (2016). The “science” of situational judgment tests: Even more curious than we thought. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.122
• Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.640
• Motowidlo, S. J., Hooper, A. C., & Jackson, H. L. (2006). Implicit trait policies: New perspectives on judging the effectiveness of response options on situational judgment tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.749
• O’Neil, H. F., Chung, G. K., & Brown, R. S. (1997). Use of networked simulations as a tool to evaluate team and individual training. In H. F. O’Neil (Ed.), Workforce readiness: Competencies and assessment (pp. 359–398). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Porter, C. O., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A. P., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and need for assistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 391–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.391
• Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37(5), 540–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406292325
• Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134
• Schäpers, P., Freudenstein, J. P., Kauffeld, S., & Krumm, S. (2019). The role of situations in situational judgment tests: Does the context matter? Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(6), 699–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09650-9
• Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20(2), 503–530. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000210
• Weekley, J. A., Hawkes, B., Guenole, N., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). Low-fidelity simulations. In F. Lievens, N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, & H. K. Sinangil (Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 418–438). Psychology Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)