Situational Judgment Tests: Why Open Response Formats Offer Deeper Insight

May 1, 2025

Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) are emerging as essential tools in higher education admissions, particularly for professional and graduate programs. Designed to assess non-academic attributes, SJTs evaluate interpersonal and professional competencies that standardized tests often overlook.

In a recent episode of The Holistic Success Show, we were joined by Dr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, research scientist at Acuity Insights. Dr. Iqbal plays a key role in developing and refining the Casper Situational Judgment Test. Together, we explore the value of SJTs, the critical differences between open and closed response formats, and why these distinctions matter for more equitable and effective admissions practices.

Below you’ll find some of the key insights gathered during our conversation with Dr. Iqbal.

What Are Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs)?

SJTs present applicants with realistic scenarios that mirror dilemmas or challenges they may encounter in professional settings. Unlike traditional academic assessments, SJTs are designed to measure non-cognitive skills such as:

• Empathy
• Communication
• Teamwork
• Professionalism
• Ethical reasoning
• Problem-solving
  

These non-technical attributes are essential for success in professions like medicine, law, education, and business. SJTS help admissions committees evaluate how candidates are likely to behave in real-world, high-stakes situations, providing a more holistic view of an applicant’s program readiness and future success.

Why Are Situational Judgment Tests Gaining Popularity in Holistic Admissions?

As more institutions adopt holistic admissions frameworks, SJTs offer a research-backed way to assess professional competencies beyond grades and test scores. This aligns with competency-based education models like CanMEDS (Canada) and the ACGME Core Competencies (United States), which emphasize the importance of social intelligence and professional judgment.

Holistic review processes value well-rounded applicants who demonstrate both academic potential and professional attributes. SJTs fill a critical gap in traditional admissions toolkits, offering objective insights into how applicants might interact with peers, patients, or clients.

How Do SJTs Compare to Other Admissions Tools?

Tool	Strengths	Limitations
GPA/Test Scores	Predict academic success	Do not measure interpersonal skills
Reference Letters	Provide contextual feedback	Often biased or inconsistent
Personal Statements	Showcase motivation	Difficult to validate; prone to coaching
Interviews/MMIs	Assess communication in real time	Time-consuming; not used in early admissions
SJTs	Scalable, valid for non-cognitive assessment	Format-dependent (see below)

SJTS stand out for their scalability, fairness, and validity, particularly when designed and scored rigorously.

Open vs. Closed Response SJTs: Why Format Matters

Closed response SJTs present multiple-choice or ranking-based options for each scenario. They are easy to administer and score at scale but come with key limitations:

• Can be gamed or guessed
• Offer limited insight into reasoning
• Vulnerable to AI tools like ChatGPT
  

Open response SJTs, such as Casper, allow candidates to write or speak their own responses. This format offers richer data on:

• Ethical reasoning
• Depth of thought
• Communication style
• Value alignment
  

Although open response SJTs require more resources to evaluate, they are less susceptible to manipulation and provide greater validity and authenticity in high-stakes admissions contexts.

Choosing the Right SJT Format for Your Admissions Goals

For programs committed to holistic admissions, open response SJTs offer unmatched value. Through structured scoring processes involving trained raters and robust quality controls, tools like Casper ensure fairness while capturing the nuances of human judgment.

Conclusion: SJTs as a Cornerstone of Modern Admissions

As higher education evolves toward more comprehensive admissions practices, Situational Judgment Tests will play an increasingly vital role. Open response formats, in particular, empower institutions to make more informed decisions by evaluating attributes essential to professional success.

To learn more about the research, methodology, and practical application of SJTs in higher education, subscribe to The Holistic Success Show and join the conversation.

Our Expert

Dr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal is a research scientist at Acuity Insights, where he contributes to the development of test content and the improvement of practices and procedures. He also conducts research in collaboration with internal teams and external partners to ensure that our Casper test is evidence-based, scientifically sound, reliable, and valid.

Dr. Iqbal completed his postdoctoral fellowship at McGill University, Canada, and earned a PhD in health professions education from Maastricht University, in the Netherlands. He has over 10 years of academic experience, primarily focused on the continuous improvement of assessment practices. His areas of research interest include assessment practices, competency-based medical education, faculty development, and co-creation.