Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

De Individuele Werkprestatie Vragenlijst (IWPV): interne consistentie, construct validiteit en normering

  • Published:
Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen Aims and scope

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figuur 1.

Literatuur

  1. Dalal RS. A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. J Appl Psychol 2005;90:1241–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Austin JT, Villanova P. The criterion problem: 1917-1992. J Appl Psychol 1992;77:836–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Viswesvaran C, Ones DS. Perspectives on Models of Job Performance. Int J Select Assess 2000;8:216–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Williams LJ, Anderson SE. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and inrole behaviors. J Management 1991;17:601–17.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Organ DW PP, MacKenzie SB. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. London: Sage Publications, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bennett RJ, Robinson SL. Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance. J Appl Psychol 2000;85:349–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The Validity and Reproducibility of a Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993;4:355–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lerner D, Amick BC, Rogers WH et al. The Work Limitations Questionnaire. Med Care 2001;39:72–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lofland JH, Pizzi L, Frick KD. A Review of Health-Related Workplace Productivity Loss Instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22:165–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH et al Development of an Individual Work Performance Questionnaire. Int J Product Perform Management 2013;62:6–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Koopmans L, Bernaards CM, Hildebrandt VH. Improving the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire using Rasch Analysis. J Appl Measurement 2014;15:160–75.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rasch G. Probabalistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests: Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cronbach IJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

  24. Vet HCW de, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in Medicine: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

  25. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP, Taris TW. Work Engagement: An Emerging Concept in Occupational Health Psychology. Work Stress 2008;22:187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Judge TA, Bono JE, Thoresen CJ, Patton GK. The Job SatisfactionJob Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review. Psychol Bull 2001;127:376–407.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Boles M, Pelletier B, Lynch W. The Relationship Between Health Risks and Work Productivity. J Occup Environ Med 2004;46: 737–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schultz AB, Edington DW. Employee Health and Presenteeism: A Systematic Review. J Occup Rehab 2007;17:547–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Staw BM. Organizational Psychology and the Pursuit of the Happy/Productive Worker. Cal Manag Rev 1986;XXVIII(4): 40–53.

  35. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VU medisch centrum (VUmc), Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Linda Koopmans,  Claire Bernaards, Vincent Hildebrandt & Allard van der Beek

  2. expertise centrum Life Style, TNO, 2215, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Linda Koopmans,  Claire Bernaards & Vincent Hildebrandt

  3. VU medisch centrum, afdeling Epidemiologie en Biostatistiek, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Riekie de Vet

  4. VU medisch centrum, afdeling Sociale Geneeskunde, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Linda Koopmans & Allard van der Beek

  5. Body@Work, onderzoekscentrum, TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Claire Bernaards

Authors
  1. Linda Koopmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire Bernaards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent Hildebrandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Riekie de Vet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Allard van der Beek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claire Bernaards.

Additional information

Correspondentieadres

Dr. Claire Bernaards, TNO, Postbus 2215, Leiden, tel. 088- 8666067, e-mail: claire.bernaards@tno.nl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12508-014-0090-3

Trefwoorden

Keywords

Search

Navigation