Single-response situational judgment tests (SRSJTs) differ from multiple-response SJTs (MRSJTS) in that they present test takers with edited critical incidents and simply ask test takers to read over the action described and evaluate it according to its effectiveness. Research comparing the reliability and validity of SRSJTs and MRSJTs is thus far extremely limited. The study reported here directly compares forms of a SRSJT and MRSJT and explores the reliability, convergent validity, and predictive validity of each format. Results from this investigation present preliminary evidence to suggest SRSJTs may produce internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and predictive validity estimates that are comparable to those achieved with many traditional MRSJTs. We conclude by discussing practical implications for personnel selection and assessment, and future research in psychological science more broadly.