Abstract:
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present an empirical examination of the convergent validity of the two foremost measurement methods used to assess adaptive performance: subjective ratings and objective task scores. Predictors of adaptive performance have been extensively examined, but limited research attention has been directed at adaptability itself as a validated construct within the job performance domain. Due to this neglect, it is unclear if researchers can generalize findings across criterion measurement methods. Design/methodology/approach – Teams of five (275 individuals) performed a computer-based task that involved a series of disruptions requiring an adaptive response. In addition to post-disruption task scores, subjective self- and peer-ratings of adaptive performance were collected. Findings – Results did not indicate strong support for the convergent validity of subjective and objective measures. Although the measures were significantly related (r=0.47, p < 0.001) and shared a relatively similar correlation pattern in the multitrait-multimethod matrix, 78 percent of the variance between measures was unexplained. Research limitations/implications – Given the goal of understanding “job” performance, results should be confirmed for actual jobs where adaptive performance is imperative (e.g. emergency response, multicultural teams). Practical implications – These findings should serve as a warning that the construct validity of adaptive performance has yet to be fully established, and previous research results should be interpreted cautiously as generalizations about adaptive performance may be limited by the particular measures used to assess the construct. Originality/value – This study was unique in its examination of both subjective and objective measures of adaptive performance. The findings of the present study highlight the need for sound theory to support the adaptive performance construct.

...(Read whole article/video)