SHL-style situational judgement
Rate every response to a workplace scenario from highly undesirable to highly desirable, or pick the best and worst
Used by Deutsche Bank (Reported), Jefferies (Reported), Fidelity International (Unverified)
The format
- Scenarios10, 5 to 7 responses each
- AnsweringRate each response on 6 points
- TimeUntimed, about 25 minutes
- Moving onForward only
How to approach it
- Rate each response on its own merits, not against the others
- Use the whole scale: sensible but imperfect actions still sit on the desirable side
- Favour actions that fix the problem early and tell the people who own the work
- Never trade honesty or client confidentiality for speed
More optionsGoing back
- Allow going backNo source says whether the real one allows it
More SHL-style drills
Format notes
What this drill copies from the published format and how sure we are of each value, checked 22 September 2026
| Parameter | Value | Label |
|---|---|---|
| Rating format | Rate every response on its own, so two can share a rating | OfficialSource for Rating format |
| Rating scale | 6 points, from highly undesirable to highly desirable | OfficialSource for Rating scale |
| Best and worst formatDocumented for another of the provider's platforms, which also stops one action being both | Pick one best and one worst action, and you can't move on until both are chosen | OfficialSource for Best and worst format |
| ScenariosPrep sites disagree: 10 scenarios with 4 to 7 responses in about 25 minutes, or 24 questions in about 20; the provider's own example has 3 responses | 10 in the full rating set, with 5 to 7 responses each | UnverifiedSource 1 for ScenariosSource 2 for ScenariosSource 3 for Scenarios |
| Best and worst setNo count is published; one prep site reports 24 scenarios for one bank's version, where you pick the most and least effective, and another says each has 3 responses | 24 scenarios with 4 actions each | UnverifiedSource 1 for Best and worst setSource 2 for Best and worst set |
| Best and worst timingOne prep site describes one bank's version as untimed, and about 20 minutes is our estimate for 24 scenarios | Untimed, about 20 minutes for the full set | UnverifiedSource for Best and worst timing |
| Time limitOne bank says only its ability test is timed | None | ReportedSource 1 for Time limitSource 2 for Time limitSource 3 for Time limit |
| Presentation | Written scenarios, though some versions use animation | OfficialSource for Presentation |
| ScoringThe method isn't published; this drill gives 2 points for matching our key and 1 for one step away | Compared with a keyed profile of effective responses | Unverified |
| Pass mark | Set by the employer, not the provider | OfficialSource for Pass mark |
| Going backNo source says whether earlier scenarios can be changed | Off by default | Unverified |
Who uses it
What the evidence says about each employer, checked 22 September 2026
Deutsche BankReported
An untimed judgement test is the first step of its spring programme; the bank names no provider, but three prep sites name this one, with 18 or 24 scenarios where you choose the most and least effective responses
Source 1 for Deutsche BankSource 2 for Deutsche BankSource 3 for Deutsche BankSource 4 for Deutsche BankSource 5 for Deutsche BankSource 6 for Deutsche BankSource 7 for Deutsche Bank
JefferiesReported
Two prep sites list a judgement test beside this provider's ability test, one counting 14 best-and-worst scenarios
Fidelity InternationalUnverified
One prep site's spring week list names this provider for its judgement test, while two others name a different provider
Source 1 for Fidelity InternationalSource 2 for Fidelity InternationalSource 3 for Fidelity International
Independent practice in the style of SHL's published format. Not affiliated with or endorsed by SHL