Objective and self‐report work performance measures: a comparative analysis

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management - 2006
GlennPransky1, StanFinkelstein2, ErnstBerndt3, MargaretKyle4, JoanMackell5, DanTortorice6
1Liberty Mutual Research Center for Safety and Health, Center for Disability Research, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
2Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,
3Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA
4Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennysylvania, USA
5Pfizer, Inc., New York City, New York, USA
6Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Tóm tắt

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to assess the feasibility and comparability of daily self‐report and objective measures of work performance in complex office tasks, and factors affecting the correlation between these measures.Design/methodology/approachMedical bill auditors provided daily information for 12 weeks through interactive voice response (IVR) on their speed, concentration and accuracy at work, compared to their best job performance.FindingsThe paper found that 124 of 142 recruited subjects (87 percent) completed > 50 percent of daily IVR reports. Concentration, speed and accuracy were highly inter‐correlated (R=0.75), and right‐skewed (mean speed=7.7, SD=1.5). Mean adjusted daily productivity rate (MAP) was 34 bills/hour (range 4.7 to 111, SD12.6, 61 percent within‐person variation). Subject‐specific speed – MAP correlation varied from R=−0.20 to +0.75 (mean, 0.28). Health status, years on job, age, IVR completion rate, site, month of study, or total hours worked were not associated with these variations.Originality/valueThis paper provides an unprecedented level of detail in the comparison of self‐reported and objective daily measures of work performance, demonstrates the feasibility of data collection and analysis, and identified significant inconsistencies among workers in the correlation between the two types of measures. Results demonstrated that daily self‐reports cannot be used as a direct surrogate for objective performance measures.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Allen, H.M. Jr and Bunn, W.B. III (2003), “Validating self‐reported measures of productivity at work. A case for their credibility in a have manufacturing setting”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 45, pp. 926‐40.

Blanc, P.D., Trupin, L. and Eisner, M. (2001), “The work impact of asthma and rhinitis: findings from a population‐based survey”, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 54, pp. 610‐8.

Cockburn, I.M., Bailit, H.L. and Berndt, E.R. (1999), “Loss of work productivity due to illness and medical treatment”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 41, pp. 948‐53.

Fahrenberg, J. (1996), “Ambulatory assessment: issues and perspectives”, in Fahrenberg, J. and Myrtek, M. (Eds), Ambulatory Assessment, Hogrefe and Huber Publishing, Toronto.

Kessler, R.C., Barber, C. and Beck, A. (2003), “The World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ)”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 45, pp. 156‐74.

Lerner, D., Adler, D.A. and Chang, H. (2004), “The clinical and occupational correlates of work productivity loss among employed patients with depression”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. S46‐S55.

Lerner, D., Amick, B.C. and Rogers, W.H. (2001), “The work limitations questionnaire”, Medical Care, Vol. 39, pp. 72‐85.

Lerner, D., Amick, B.C. III, Lee, J.C. and Rooney, T. (2003), “Relationship of employee‐reported work limitations to work productivity”, Medical Care, Vol. 41, pp. 649‐59.

Lerner, D.J., Amick, B.C. and Malspesis, S. (1999), “The migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire: concepts and design”, QLR, Vol. 8, pp. 699‐710.

Peters, M.L., Sorbi, M.J. and Kruise, D.A. (2000), “Electronic diary assessment of pain, disability and psychological adaptation in patients differing in duration of pain”, Pain, Vol. 84, pp. 181‐92.

Reilly, M.C., Zbrozek, A.S. and Dukes, E.M. (1993), “The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument”, Pharmacoeconomics, Vol. 4, pp. 353‐65.

Ross, R.N. (1996), “The costs of allergic rhinitis”, American Journal of Managed Care, Vol. 2, pp. 285‐90.

Schwartz, B.S., Stewart, W.F. and Lipton, R.B. (1997), “Lost work days and decreased work effectiveness associated with headache in the workplace”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 39, pp. 320‐37.

Stewart, W.F., Lipton, R.B. and Kolodner, K.B. (2000), “Validity of the MIDAS score in comparison to a diary‐based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers”, Pain, Vol. 88, pp. 41‐52.

Stewart, W.F., Lipton, R.B. and Simon, D. (1999), “Validity of an illness severity measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers”, Pain, Vol. 79, pp. 291‐301.

Tangen, S. (2003), “An overview of frequently used performance measures”, Work Study, Vol. 52, pp. 347‐54.

Wang, P.S., Beck, A.L., Berglund, P. and McKenas, D.K. (2004), “Effects of major depression on moment‐in‐time work performance”, American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 161, pp. 1885‐91.

Schwarz, N. and Sudman, S. (1994), Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research, Springer‐Verlag, New York, NY.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

Thông tin tác giả