电力准员工核心胜任素质评价工具的编制
Compilation of the Core Competency Quality Assessment Tool Used by Electric Prospective Employees

作者: 曹 坚 * , 杜英杰 :重庆电力高等专科学校;

关键词: 电力准员工核心胜任素质信效度胜任力模型 Electric Prospective Employee Core Competency Quality Reliability and Validity Competency Model

摘要: 目的:探索电力准员工核心胜任素质模型,编制高信、效度评价工具。方法:通过查找文献和访谈相结合,编制电力准员工核心胜任素质测评工具,经试测和大规模抽样调查,对有效数据进行因素分析和信效度检验。结果:因素分析所获维度与理论构想的类中心基本吻合,结构效度较好;再测信度为0.956 (P < 0.001),克伦巴赫系数为0.932 (P < 0.001),工具具备高信度;验证性因素分析所有指标均证明模型拟合较好,工具具备高效度。结论:该量表具备高信效度,可用于测评电力准员工的核心胜任素质。

Abstract: Objective: To explore the core competency quality model of electric prospective employees, and compile evaluation tool with high reliability and validity. Method: By literature search and interviews, the core competency quality assessment tool used by electric prospective employees was compiled, after tentative test and large-scale sampling survey, all valid data were executed the factor analysis and test of reliability and validity. Result: All dimensions from factor analysis seem to be accord with the theoretical conception, which shows high structural validity; test-retest reliability was 0.956 (P < 0.001), and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.932 (P < 0.001), tool with high reliability; all indicators from confirmatory factor analysis prove that the model works well, tool with high validity. Conclusion: The scale with high reliability and validity, which can be used for evaluating the core competence quality of electric prospective employees.

文章引用: 曹 坚 , 杜英杰 (2013) 电力准员工核心胜任素质评价工具的编制。 心理学进展, 3, 195-200. doi: 10.12677/AP.2013.34030

参考文献

[1] 彭剑锋, 荆小娟(2005). 员工素质模型设计. 中国人民大学出版社, 北京.

[2] 陆伊(2007). 基于胜任力的大学生素质评价指标体系研究. 苏州大学硕士论文, 苏州.

[3] 王重鸣, 陈民科(2002). 管理胜任力特征分析: 结构方程模型检验.心理科学, 5期, 513-516.

[4] Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1995). Competence at work. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 222-226.

[5] Hollenbeck, G. P., McCall Jr., M. W., & Silzer, R. F. (2006). Leadership competency models. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 398-413.

[6] Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 9-25.

[7] Mynttinen, S., Gatscha, M., Koivukoski, M., Hakuli, K., & Keskinen, E. (2010). Two-phase driver education models applied in Finland and in Austria—Do we have evidence to support the two phase models? Transportation Research, 13, 63-70.

[8] Otsuka, Y., Misawa, R., Noguchi, H., & Yamaguchi, H. (2010). A con- sideration for using workers’ heuristics to improve safety rules based on relationships between creative mental sets and rule-violating ac- tions. Safety Science, 48, 878-884.

分享
Top