Faking Does Not Impair the Validity of Construct‐Focused Situational Judgment Tests: An Experimental Study

ABSTRACT This experimental study examined whether faking affected a construct‐focused situational judgment test (SJT) measuring self‐organization. Using a within‐subjects design, the SJT and a single‐statement self‐report were administered to employees of a federal agency who were students at a cooperative university affiliated with that agency ( N = 256), under two conditions: honest responding and faking good. The SJT used knowledge instructions (“How should one behave?”) and an expert‐based scoring method whereby participants' responses were compared with those of subject‐matter experts. Construct validity was assessed using correlations with Big Five personality traits; criterion validity was evaluated based on correlations with participants' grade point averages (GPAs). Faking changed scores substantially on the single‐statement self‐report ( d = 1.04) but only modestly on the SJT ( d = 0.25). Structural equation modeling revealed that the construct validity of the single‐statement self‐report was reduced under faking conditions, whereas that of the SJT remained stable, showing consistent associations with Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. The criterion validity of the SJT was unaffected or even slightly enhanced under faking conditions. Supplementary analyses using binary scoring replicated prior findings of stronger effects of faking on single‐statement self‐report than on SJT scale scores but showed no detrimental impact on validity. These results suggest that construct‐focused SJTs are less vulnerable to faking than are single‐statement self‐reports, thus supporting their application in high‐stakes selection contexts.