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

Author(s):

Glenn Pransky (Liberty Mutual Research Center for Safety and Health, Center for Disability Research, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, USA and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA)

Stan Finkelstein (Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA)

Ernst Berndt (Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA)

Margaret Kyle (Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennysylvania, USA)

Joan Mackell (Pfizer, Inc., New York City, New York, USA)

Dan Tortorice (Department of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA)

Citation:

Glenn Pransky, Stan Finkelstein, Ernst Berndt, Margaret Kyle, Joan Mackell, Dan Tortorice, (2006) "Objective and self‐report work performance measures: a comparative analysis", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 Issue: 5, pp.390-399, doi: 10.1108/17410400610671426

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410400610671426

Downloads:

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1546 times since 2006

Acknowledgements:

Supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer, Inc.

Abstract:

Purpose

– The 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/approach

– Medical 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.

Findings

– The 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/value

– This 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.

Keywords:

Performance management, Measurement, Surveys

Type:

Research paper

Publisher:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright:

© Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2006
Published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited