Koopmans Linda, Bernaards Claire M, Hildebrandt Vincent H, de Vet Henrica C W, van der Beek Allard J
Body@Work, Research Center for Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Expertise Center Life Style, TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Body@Work, Research Center for Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Expertise Center Life Style, TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Work. 2014;48(2):229-38. doi: 10.3233/WOR-131659.
Theoretically, individual work performance (IWP) can be divided into four dimensions: task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance, and counterproductive work behavior. However, there is no consensus on the indicators used to measure these dimensions.
This study was designed to (1) identify indicators for each dimension, (2) select the most relevant indicators, and (3) determine the relative weight of each dimension in ratings of work performance.
IWP indicators were identified from multiple research disciplines, via literature, existing questionnaires, and expert interviews. Subsequently, experts selected the most relevant indicators per dimension and scored the relative weight of each dimension in ratings of IWP.
In total, 128 unique indicators were identified. Twenty-three of these indicators were selected by experts as most relevant for measuring IWP. Task performance determined 36% of the work performance rating, while the other three dimensions respectively determined 22%, 20% and 21% of the rating.
Notable consensus was found on relevant indicators of IWP, reducing the number from 128 to 23 relevant indicators. This provides an important step towards the development of a standardized, generic and short measurement instrument for assessing IWP.
理论上，个体工作绩效（IWP）可分为四个维度：任务绩效、周边绩效、适应性绩效和反生产工作行为。然而，对于用于衡量这些维度的指标尚无共识。
本研究旨在（1）确定每个维度的指标，（2）选择最相关的指标，以及（3）确定每个维度在工作绩效评级中的相对权重。
通过文献、现有问卷和专家访谈，从多个研究学科中确定IWP指标。随后，专家们选择了每个维度最相关的指标，并对每个维度在IWP评级中的相对权重进行评分。
总共确定了128个独特的指标。其中23个指标被专家选为衡量IWP最相关的指标。任务绩效决定了36%的工作绩效评级，而其他三个维度分别决定了22%、20%和21%的评级。
在IWP的相关指标上达成了显著共识，将指标数量从128个减少到23个相关指标。这为开发一种标准化、通用且简短的评估IWP的测量工具迈出了重要一步。
