Situational Judgement Test Practice
Workplace scenarios rated against the behaviours an employer has decided predict success. No maths, and barely a clock.
Situational Judgement Practice Tests
Situational Judgement Test
Read workplace scenarios and rate how effective each response option would be. Scored against an expert key across competency dimensions. Mirrors the SHL SJT format.
Cubiks Situational Judgement
Read workplace scenarios and rate how effective each response would be against an expert competency key. Mirrors the Cubiks situational judgement format.
Strengths-Based Situational Judgement
Read realistic workplace scenarios and rate how effective each response would be. Scored against an expert strengths key - and how quickly and confidently you answer contributes to your result. Mirrors the core Cappfinity strengths-based SJT used by EY, Teach First and other graduate schemes.
Kenexa Situational Judgement
Rate how effective each response to a workplace scenario would be, on a five-point scale, against an expert key. Full credit for matching the key and partial credit for being one position off. Mirrors the IBM Kenexa Custom Situational Judgment Test.
Perceptions Situational Judgement
Untimed workplace scenarios with four actions each, rated on a six-point effectiveness scale that has no neutral middle. Credit spans two adjacent labels, so calibration matters as much as ranking.
Situational Judgement
Pick the most effective and the least effective response to a workplace scenario. Sova asks for one best and one worst rather than a rating for every option, and scores the two separately.
Sustainable Futures Lab
Thirteen judgement calls on an environmental project that keeps changing under you, opening with a priority ranking. No arithmetic. Scored against our own expert key across five dimensions, because McKinsey publishes no scoring model for this module.
Virtual Job Tryout
A multi-section job simulation: situational judgement, a multi-source information task, emotion recognition, a delayed recall trap and a work-style section.
Virtual Entry Assessment MC (474)
The carrier VEA: work situations, what motivates you, your work history and describe your work style. For CCA, RCA, ARC and city and rural carrier jobs.
Virtual Entry Assessment MH (475)
The mail handler VEA: work situations, your work history, describe your work style and a checking for accuracy section.
Virtual Entry Assessment MP (476)
The mail processing clerk VEA: work situations, your work history, describe your work style and a checking for accuracy section.
Virtual Entry Assessment CS (477)
The retail VEA for sales and services associates: customer work situations, your work history and describe your work style.
Behavioural Scenarios
Sixteen prison scenarios in 20 minutes. Pick the most effective of four responses, then the least effective, keyed to the four behaviours HMPPS selects prison officers on. A third tap clears both picks, as on the real player.
National Sift Situational Judgement
Rate four possible actions in each policing scenario on the College of Policing scale, from Counterproductive to Very effective, with the scale definitions on screen. Keyed to the six competencies of the 2024 framework. No knowledge of law or procedure is needed.
Civil Service Judgement Test
The CSJT: a 20-statement self-assessment, then three scenarios for each Behaviour on your job advert, every action rated Counterproductive to Effective. Pick your grade and the Behaviours you are being tested on.
Management Judgement Test
Fifteen line-management scenarios across the five aspects the Civil Service assesses, choosing the action you would be most likely and least likely to take. Used for jobs from EO to SEO.
Work Strengths Test
All three parts: strengths statements, ten scenarios rated for effectiveness, and five most and least likely choices, on the AA to EO or HEO to SCS 1 strength pairs.
Customer Service Skills Test
The three-part simulation: branching customer exchanges where your first reply changes what the customer says next, six rated scenarios, and ten minutes of timed checking and data entry.
Casework Skills Test
The three-part simulation: a case pack of emails, letters and policy extracts judged Definitely true to Definitely false, six rated casework scenarios, and ten minutes of timed checking and data entry.
Occupational Judgment
The decision-making part of the USA Hire battery: a federal workplace scene, then the Most effective and the Least effective of four courses of action, inside five minutes. The real scenes are animated videos; ours are written transcripts.
ECTA Early Career Judgment
The judgement half of OPM’s Early Career Talent Assessment for student trainee jobs: situations a student or intern meets at work, with every response rated from Highly Ineffective to Highly Effective.
Situational Judgement (Most and Least)
The scenario items from Amberjack’s blended assessment: a workplace situation and four responses, and you mark one Most effective and one Least effective. Each half is marked on its own, and your breakdown uses Amberjack’s four pillars of potential: Grit, Creative Force, Applied Intellect and Digital Mindset.
Future Potential Blended Assessment
The full Amberjack sitting that employers call an immersive, online blended or future potential assessment: 12 workplace scenarios where you mark the Most and Least effective response, then 10 emails from colleagues answered from an inbox, in three sections. No clock, but every answer is timed. Used on UK graduate, apprentice and training contract schemes.
Clevry Graduate/Managerial SJT
Fifteen workplace scenarios in 30 minutes. Pick the most effective and the least effective of four responses, scored against Thinking, Achieving, Influencing, Collaboration and Commercial Awareness.
Situational Judgement Test
Eight work situations from contact-centre, retail and team-lead jobs, or eight from the one you are applying for. Mark the best and the worst response to each. Scored as Harver does: +1 for a pick that matches the key, -1 for a reversed one. Untimed.
Unsupervised Test of Judgement (TOJ 376)
The online Test of Judgement that is step 1 for most officer-level jobs: 52 work situations, each with one response to rate from Very ineffective to Very effective, in 90 minutes. Responses to the same situation are scattered through the paper as on the real test, and near misses earn partial credit. Feedback maps your result onto the J-01 to J-10 levels.
Supervised Test of Judgement (TOJ 377)
The in-person Test of Judgement, taken alone or as step 2 after the TOJ 376: 40 situations and responses to rate on the same six-point scale in 60 minutes, a little tighter per item than the unsupervised test. Feedback maps your result onto the J-01 to J-10 levels departments set their pass marks on.
NFA Situational Awareness and Problem Solving
Thirty short situations in 35 minutes, on duty and around the station, each with four things you might do. It asks what you would do, but it is marked: one answer is counted correct, and the key follows a few steady rules about safety and reporting.
chatAssess (Situational Judgement)
Colleagues message you in a simulated chat app with problems from the job, and you choose one of several replies to each, with their follow-up depending on what you picked. Untimed, with a new colleague messaging part-way through. Mirrors Aon’s chatAssess.
What Situational Judgement Measures
Fit with the competency framework
Employers build the scoring key from their own competencies, so the same answer can score differently at two companies. A collaborative culture rewards consulting the team; a fast-moving one rewards deciding and informing.
Prioritisation
Many scenarios present four things that all look urgent. What is measured is the order you tackle them in, and in particular whether you protect the commitment that affects other people.
Consistency
The same underlying judgement is usually tested more than once in different wording. Answers that swing between scenarios flag as inconsistent even when each one looks reasonable alone.
Question Formats
Rate each response
Score four or five possible actions individually, typically from counterproductive to highly effective. Used by SHL. You can rate more than one response as effective, which is what makes it more forgiving than ranking.
Rank the responses
Order every option from best to worst. Harder to score well on, because partial credit depends on the whole order rather than on picking one right answer.
Most and least effective
Choose only the best and the worst action from the list. Common in Cubiks situational judgement, and the middle options are deliberately hard to separate.
Most and least like me
The strengths-based variant used by Cappfinity, and by EY, KPMG and Teach First among others. It measures preference and energy rather than judgement, so second-guessing the key works badly here.
Video and immersive scenarios
A filmed or interactive scenario in place of written text, increasingly used at the assessment centre stage. The judgement being tested is the same; only the presentation changes.
How to Prepare
Read the employer values page first
The scoring key is usually derived from the published competency framework. Ten minutes on the careers site tells you whether they reward decisiveness or consultation, and that resolves most borderline options.
Escalate rarely, and never first
Do the part you can do within your own authority, then escalate what genuinely sits above it. Going straight to a manager scores low on almost every key, and so does never escalating anything.
Never pick the option that avoids the problem
Ignoring an issue, going over a colleague head without speaking to them, or waiting to see whether it resolves itself are the reliably worst-rated actions across every provider.
Answer as the role, not as yourself
A graduate analyst and a team leader should answer some scenarios differently. Anchor to the level you have applied for and the authority it actually carries.
Do not overthink the strengths-based versions
Most and least like me formats check consistency across the whole test. Choosing what you think they want produces a contradictory profile far more often than it produces a strong one.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you fail a situational judgement test?
Yes. SJTs are frequently used as a sift, not just as extra information, and a low fit score can end an application on its own. They tend to be scored against a threshold set by the employer rather than curved against other candidates.
Is there a right answer in an SJT?
There is a scoring key, which is not quite the same thing. The key is built from what the employer competency framework rewards, often validated against how existing high performers answered. So there are better and worse answers, but they belong to that employer rather than being universally correct.
How is a situational judgement test scored?
On rating formats you earn credit for how close your rating is to the key, so being one point out still scores something. On ranking formats credit depends on the whole order. On strengths-based formats you are profiled rather than marked, and consistency across the test matters more than any single answer.
Should I answer honestly or strategically?
Answer as the best version of yourself in that role. Pure honesty ignores the fact that the test measures fit against a defined framework. Pure strategy produces inconsistency, which is detected. Read the values, then answer as somebody who genuinely holds them.
How long does a situational judgement test take?
Typically 20 to 40 minutes for 8 to 20 scenarios. Many are untimed or generously timed, because the employer wants considered answers rather than fast ones. Video-based versions take longer, usually 30 to 45 minutes.
Provider guides
Ready to start practising?
Real time limits, full scoring and percentile feedback on every test.