روایی‌سنجی ارزیابی عملکرد سنتی و ارزیابی چندوجهی شایستگی‌ها از طریق کانون ارزیابی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

کارشناس ارشد روان‌شناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان

چکیده

هدف پژوهش حاضر سنجش روایی ارزیابی عملکرد سنتی و ارزیابی چندوجهی شایستگی‌ها از طریق کانون ارزیابی بود. شرکت‌کنندگان در پژوهش 71 نفر از کاندیدهای سمت سرپرستی شرکت فولاد آلیاژی ایران بودند. جهت تحلیل داده‌ها از همبستگی پیرسون و رگرسیون سلسه مراتبی استفاده شد. نتایج بررسی روایی ملاکی نشان داد ارزیابی عملکرد سنتی و ارزیابی چند‌وجهی شایستگی‌ها به‌طور مثبت و معنی‌داری در پیش‌بینی نمرات کانون ارزیابی مؤثر بودند. روایی افزایشی مبتنی بر شواهد نشان داد ارزیابی چند‌وجهی شایستگی‌ها در مقایسه با ارزیابی سنتی عملکرد، 3/26 درصد در پیش‌بینی نمرات کانون ارزیابی موفق‌تر بوده است. همچنین، بررسی شایستگی‌های یکسان در ارزیابی چند‌وجهی و مرکز ارزیابی، روایی همگرای 4 شایستگی را تأیید و 2 شایستگی را رد کرد. یافته‌های پژوهش حاکی از آن است که به منظور ارزیابی عملکرد کارکنان، ارزیابی چندوجهی شایستگی‌ها در مقایسه با ارزیابی سنتی از روایی بالاتری برخوردار است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Validation of Traditional Performance Appraisal and Multi-Source Appraisal of Competences through Assessment Center

نویسنده [English]

  • Iman Shakeri
چکیده [English]

The aim of this study was to investigate the validity of two methods of performance appraisal. 71 supervisor the participants include candidates in Iran Alloy Steel Company. Data were analyzed using Pearson correlation and hierarchical regression analysis. Results of criterion validity showed traditional performance appraisal and multi-source appraisal of competencies positively and significantly predicted assessment center scores. Evidence-based incremental validation showed multi-source appraisal of competences in comparison with traditional performance evaluation has been, 26.3% more successful in predicting assessment center scores. Also, investigation of the same competencies in multi-source appraisal and assessment center confirmed convergent validity of 4 competences and rejected 2 of them. Findings indicate multi-source appraisal of competences in comparison with traditional appraisal have greater validity for employees¢ performance appraisal.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • traditional performance appraisal
  • multi-source appraisal of competences
  • assessment center
  • construct validity

فارسی

نوری، ابوالقاسم؛ لباف، حسن؛ عریضی، سید حمیدرضا؛ مولوی، حسین؛ گرگانی، حمید؛ و موسویان، سیدعلی (1385). تحلیل روان شناختی و جامع نظام ارزیابی عملکرد و مسیر شغلی مدیران شرکت ملی گاز ایران و شرکت‌های گاز استانی. پروژه تحقیقاتی دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان.

 

لاتین

Atkins, W. B., & Wood, E. (2002). Self versus others ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360 degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 871-904.

Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based Io psychology: Not there yet. Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4(1), 3-22.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. PsychologicalBulletin, 56(2), 81-105.

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chandekar, M., & Khatod, S. (2015). Competence maping; a strategic tool in employee ecruitment. Abhinav Publication, 4(1), 27-33.

Conway, J., & Huffcutt, A. (2009). Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer,
and self-ratings. Human Performance, 10(4), 331-360.

Dessler, G. (2003). Human resources management. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Externbrink, K., & Inceoglu, I. (2010). Evidence- based leadership development: A case study on 360- degree feedback. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 5(1), 11-17.

Externbrink, K., Dormann, C. (2014). Fuhren und entscheiden: Evidence-based management. In J. Felfe (Ed.), Trends der psychologischen führungsforschung neue konzepte, methoden und erkenntnisse (PP.429-441). Gottingen: Hogrefe.

Gallagher, T. (2008). 360-Degree performance reviews offer valuable perspectives. Financial Execute, 24(10), 61-72.

Gaugler, B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thomton, G. C., & Bentson, C. (1987). Meta analysis of assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 493-511.

Hagan, M. C., Konopaske, R., Bernardin, J., & Tyler, L. C. (2006). Predicting assessment center performance with 360-degree, topdown, and customer-based competency assessments. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 357-390.

Hensel, R., Meijers, F., Leeden, R., & Kessels, J. (2010). 360 degree feedback: How many raters are needed for reliable ratings on the capacity to develop competences, with personal qualities as developmental goals?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(15), 2813-2830.

Hoffman, B. J., & Meade, A. (2012). Alternate approaches to understanding the psychometric properties of assessment centers: An analysis of the structure and equivalence of exercise ratings. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(1) ,82-97.

Hooft, E., Flier, V., & Mine, M. (2006). Construct validation of multisource performance ratings: An examination if relationship of self supervisor and peer ratings whit cognitive and personality measures. International journal of selection and assessment, 14(1), 67-94.

Howard, A. (1998). A reassessment of assessment centers: Challenges for the 21st century. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(5), 13-52.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1995). Understandingperformance appraisal: social, organization, and goal-based perspective.
Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

Oz, O., & Seren, D. B. (2012). Developing the Application of 360 Degree Performance Appraisal through Logic Model.International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(22), 280-286.

Pak, D. (2009). Implement Strategic 360 Degree Appraisal for a University. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 1(2), 60-69.

Pitoniak, M. J., Sireci, S. G., & Leucht, R. M. (2002). A multitraitmultimethod investigation of scores from a professional licensure examination. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(3), 498-516.

Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1997). Effect of race on promotions to top management in a federal department. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 112-124.

Rousseau, D., M. (2006). Is there such thing as evidence-based management?. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269.

Schmitt, N., Gooding, R. Z., Noe, R. A., & Kirsch M. (1984). Meta-analyses of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. Perssonel Psycholow, 37(3), 407-422.

Scullen, S., E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 119-144.

Thornton, G. C., & Gibbons, A. M. (2009). Validity of assessment centers for personnel selection. Human Resource Management Review, 19(3), 169-187.

Thornton, G. C., & Rupp, D. E. (2006). Assessment centers in human resource management: Strategies for prediction, diagnosis and development. New Jersey: Publishers Mahwah.

Woehr, D., & Arthur, W. (2003). The construct-related validity of assessment center ratings: A review and meta-analysis of the role of methodological factors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 258-231.

Wood, R. E., Allen, J., Pillinger, T., & Kohn, N. (1999). 360-Feedback theory, research and practice. In A. Tiavaglione, V. Marshall (Eds.), Human resource strategies: An applied approach, (PP. 209-228). Sydney: McGraw Hill.

Wu, S., Jenkins, S. N., Hoffman, E. R., & Morrell, D. S. (2014) Validity and use of the 360-degree evaluation tool in a dermatology residency program. Clin Res Dermatol Open Access 1(1), 1-4.