Samenvatting
Het meten van individuele werkprestatie, gedefinieerd als “gedragingen of acties van werknemers die relevant zijn voor de doelstelling van de organisatie”, blijkt lastig. Tot op heden ontbrak een geschikte vragenlijst om individuele werkprestatie te meten in een generieke, overwegend gezonde, werknemerspopulatie. In het huidige artikel wordt de Individuele Werkprestatie Vragenlijst (IWPV) geïntroduceerd. De IWPV is gebaseerd op een conceptueel model bestaande uit de drie dimensies taakprestatie, contextuele prestatie, en contraproductief werkgedrag. De factor structuur en interne consistentie van de IWPV schalen blijken goed te zijn. Ook de construct validiteit kan als redelijk goed worden geclassificeerd. Ten slotte worden normscores per type werk gepresenteerd. De IWPV is al met al een valide instrument om de relevante dimensies van individuele werkprestatie op een korte, volledige, en generieke manier (in alle typen werk en voor werknemers met en zonder gezondheidsklachten) te meten.
Abstract
The Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ): internal consistency, construct validity, and norm scores Measuring individual work performance, defined as “behaviors or actions of employees that are relevant to the goals of the organization”, is challenging. So far, there was no suitable questionnaire to measure individual work performance in a generic, mostly healthy, working population. The current article introduces the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ). The IWPQ is based on a conceptual framework with three dimensions: task performance, contextual performance, and counterproductive work behavior. The factor structure and internal consistency of the IWPQ subscales, as well as the construct validity of the IWPQ, appear to be good. Norm scores per type of work are presented. The IWPQ provides researchers with a reliable and valid instrument to measure the full spectrum of individual work performance, in a standardized and generic way (for workers in all types of jobs, and workers with and without health problems).
Literatuur
Dalal RS. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. J Appl Psychol 2005;90:1241–55.
Rotundo M, Sackett PR. The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of performance: a policy-capturing approach. J Appl Psychol 2002;87:66–80.
Campbell JP. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM (Eds). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol.1 (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA, US: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1990:687–732.
Austin JT, Villanova P. The criterion problem: 1917-1992. J Appl Psychol 1992;77:836–74.
Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH, De Vet HCW, van der Beek AJ. Measuring Individual Work Performance: Identifying and Selecting Indicators. Work: J Prevent Assess Rehab 2013;45;229–38.
Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH et al. Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance A systematic review. J Occup Environ Med 2011;53:856–66.
Viswesvaran C, Ones DS. Perspectives on Models of Job Performance. Int J Select Assess 2000;8:216–26.
Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In: Schmitt N, Borman WC (eds). Personnel Selection in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1993:71–98.
Williams LJ, Anderson SE. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and inrole behaviors. J Management 1991;17:601–17.
Organ DW PP, MacKenzie SB. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. London: Sage Publications, 2006.
Bennett RJ, Robinson SL. Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance. J Appl Psychol 2000;85:349–60.
Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The Validity and Reproducibility of a Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993;4:355–65.
Lerner D, Amick BC, Rogers WH et al. The Work Limitations Questionnaire. Med Care 2001;39:72–85.
Kessler RC, Barber C, Beck A et al. The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). J Occup Environ Med 2003;45:156–74.
Lofland JH, Pizzi L, Frick KD. A Review of Health-Related Workplace Productivity Loss Instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22:165–84.
Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry SJ. A Review of Methods to Measure Health-related Productivity Loss. Am J Managed Care 2007;13:211–8.
Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH et al Development of an Individual Work Performance Questionnaire. Int J Product Perform Management 2013;62:6–28.
Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH. Improving the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire using Rasch Analysis. J Appl Measurement 2014;15:160–75.
Rasch G. Probabalistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests: Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Cronbach IJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297–333.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:737–45.
Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The Measurement of Work Engagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study. Educ Psychol Measur 2006;66:701–16.
Kessler RC, Petukhova M, McInnes K, Ustun TB. Content and Scoring Rules for the WHO HPQ absenteeism and presenteeism questions. To: Persons interested in the WHO HPQ absenteeism and presenteeism questions, 2007.
Vet HCW de, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Bernaards CM, Proper KI, Hildebrandt VH. Physical Activity, Cardiorespiratory Fitness, and Body Mass Index in Relationship to Work Productivity and Sickness Absence in Computer Workers With Preexisting Neck and Upper Limb Symptoms. J Occup Environ Med 2007;49:633–40.
Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Taris TW. Work Engagement: An Emerging Concept in Occupational Health Psychology. Work Stress 2008;22:187–200.
Demerouti E, Cropanzano R. From Thought to Action: Employee Work Engagement and Job Performance. In: Bakker AB, Leiter MP, editors. Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. New York: Psychology Press, 2010.
Halbesleben JRB, Wheeler AR. The Relative Roles of Engagement and Embeddedness in Predicting Job Performance and Intention to Leave. Work & Stress. 2008;22(3):242–56.
Harrison DA, Newman DA, Roth PL. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Acad Management J 2008;49: 305–25.
Judge TA, Bono JE, Thoresen CJ, Patton GK. The Job SatisfactionJob Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Psychol Bull 2001;127:376–407.
Boles M, Pelletier B, Lynch W. The Relationship Between Health Risks and Work Productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2004;46: 737–45.
Schultz AB, Edington DW. Employee Health and Presenteeism: A Systematic Review. J Occup Rehab 2007;17:547–79.
Fischer CD. Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. J Organ Behav 2003;24:753–77.
Staw BM. Organizational Psychology and the Pursuit of the Happy/Productive Worker. Cal Manag Rev 1986;XXVIII(4): 40–53.
Velde G van der, Beaton D, Hogg-Johnston S, Hurwitz E, Tennant A. Rasch Analysis Provides New Insights Into the Measurement Properties of the Neck Disability Index. Arthrit Rheum 2009;61:544–51.
Tennant A, McKenna SP, Hagell P. Application of Rasch Analysis in the Development and Application of Quality of Life Instruments. Value in Health 2004;7:S22–S6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Correspondentieadres
Dr. Claire Bernaards, TNO, Postbus 2215, Leiden, tel. 088- 8666067, e-mail: claire.bernaards@tno.nl.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V. et al. De Individuele Werkprestatie Vragenlijst (IWPV): interne consistentie, construct validiteit en normering. Tijds. gezondheids.wetenschappen 92, 231–239 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-014-0090-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-014-0090-3