Affiliations: Body@Work, Research Center for Physical Activity, Work
and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Expertise Center Life Style, TNO, Leiden, The
Netherlands | Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO+
Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO+
Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Note: [] Corresponding author: Linda Koopmans, TNO, PO Box 2215, Leiden,
The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 888 66 2825; E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Theoretically, individual work performance (IWP)
can be divided into four dimensions: task performance, contextual performance,
adaptive performance, and counterproductive work behavior. However, there is no
consensus on the indicators used to measure these dimensions. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to 1) identify indicators for each dimension, 2) select
the most relevant indicators, and 3) determine the relative weight of each
dimension in ratings of work performance. METHODS: IWP indicators were
identified from multiple research disciplines, via literature, existing
questionnaires, and expert interviews. Subsequently, experts selected the most
relevant indicators per dimension and scored the relative weight of each
dimension in ratings of IWP. RESULTS: In total, 128 unique indicators
were identified. Twenty-three of these indicators were selected by experts as
most relevant for measuring IWP. Task performance determined 36% of the work
performance rating, while the other three dimensions respectively determined
22%, 20% and 21% of the rating. CONCLUSIONS: Notable consensus was found on relevant indicators of IWP, reducing the number from 128 to 23
relevant indicators. This provides an important step towards the development of
a standardized, generic and short measurement instrument for assessing IWP.
