人力资本资源的定义与测量:内容与元分析综述。

IF 9.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Liwen Zhang, Chad H Van Iddekinge, Robert E Ployhart, John D Arnold, Samantha L Jordan
{"title":"人力资本资源的定义与测量:内容与元分析综述。","authors":"Liwen Zhang,&nbsp;Chad H Van Iddekinge,&nbsp;Robert E Ployhart,&nbsp;John D Arnold,&nbsp;Samantha L Jordan","doi":"10.1037/apl0001088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although human capital resources (HCR) can be important for organizational performance, researchers have defined and measured HCR in various ways. Consequently, it is unclear whether existing measures provide valid inferences about HCR or their relations with other constructs. We conducted this three-study research to address these issues. In Study 1, we reviewed HCR definitions (<i>k</i> = 84) and found that most definitions focus on collective knowledge, skills, and abilities. Recent definitions also tend to include other characteristics (e.g., personality). In Study 2, a content analysis of HCR measures (<i>k</i> = 127) revealed that only 23.6% of the measures focused solely on HCR and they tended to assess only one or two dimensions of the construct (i.e., were deficient). Many measures (46.5%) assessed both HCR and other constructs (i.e., were partially contaminated), and other measures (29.9%) assessed only non-HCR constructs (i.e., were fully contaminated). In Study 3 (<i>k</i> = 94), we found that HCR measures that were less deficient demonstrated stronger criterion-related validity for predicting unit and firm performance. Interestingly, partially contaminated measures were somewhat more predictive than uncontaminated measures (<i>ρ</i> = .35 vs. .25, respectively), mainly because they assessed both HCR and other constructs that are related to performance. Both types of measures demonstrated stronger validity than fully contaminated measures. Overall, findings suggest that extant HCR measures often are deficient and/or contaminated. We discuss implications, as well as offer guidance for measuring HCR in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":"108 9","pages":"1486-1514"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The definition and measurement of human capital resources: A content and meta-analytic review.\",\"authors\":\"Liwen Zhang,&nbsp;Chad H Van Iddekinge,&nbsp;Robert E Ployhart,&nbsp;John D Arnold,&nbsp;Samantha L Jordan\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/apl0001088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although human capital resources (HCR) can be important for organizational performance, researchers have defined and measured HCR in various ways. Consequently, it is unclear whether existing measures provide valid inferences about HCR or their relations with other constructs. We conducted this three-study research to address these issues. In Study 1, we reviewed HCR definitions (<i>k</i> = 84) and found that most definitions focus on collective knowledge, skills, and abilities. Recent definitions also tend to include other characteristics (e.g., personality). In Study 2, a content analysis of HCR measures (<i>k</i> = 127) revealed that only 23.6% of the measures focused solely on HCR and they tended to assess only one or two dimensions of the construct (i.e., were deficient). Many measures (46.5%) assessed both HCR and other constructs (i.e., were partially contaminated), and other measures (29.9%) assessed only non-HCR constructs (i.e., were fully contaminated). In Study 3 (<i>k</i> = 94), we found that HCR measures that were less deficient demonstrated stronger criterion-related validity for predicting unit and firm performance. Interestingly, partially contaminated measures were somewhat more predictive than uncontaminated measures (<i>ρ</i> = .35 vs. .25, respectively), mainly because they assessed both HCR and other constructs that are related to performance. Both types of measures demonstrated stronger validity than fully contaminated measures. Overall, findings suggest that extant HCR measures often are deficient and/or contaminated. We discuss implications, as well as offer guidance for measuring HCR in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"volume\":\"108 9\",\"pages\":\"1486-1514\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001088\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001088","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

虽然人力资本资源(HCR)对组织绩效很重要,但研究者们对人力资本资源的定义和衡量方式多种多样。因此,目前尚不清楚现有的措施是否提供了关于HCR或它们与其他构式的关系的有效推论。为了解决这些问题,我们进行了三项研究。在研究1中,我们回顾了HCR的定义(k = 84),发现大多数定义侧重于集体知识、技能和能力。最近的定义也倾向于包括其他特征(例如,个性)。在研究2中,对HCR测量的内容分析(k = 127)显示,只有23.6%的测量只关注HCR,它们往往只评估结构的一个或两个维度(即缺陷)。许多测量(46.5%)评估了HCR和其他结构(即部分污染),而其他测量(29.9%)仅评估了非HCR结构(即完全污染)。在研究3 (k = 94)中,我们发现缺陷较少的HCR测量在预测单位和企业绩效方面表现出更强的标准相关效度。有趣的是,部分污染的测量比未污染的测量更具预测性(ρ分别为0.35 vs. 25),主要是因为它们评估了HCR和其他与表现相关的结构。两种测量方法的效度都比完全污染的测量方法强。总体而言,研究结果表明,现有的HCR措施往往存在缺陷和/或污染。我们讨论了其影响,并为今后的研究提供了测量HCR的指导。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The definition and measurement of human capital resources: A content and meta-analytic review.

Although human capital resources (HCR) can be important for organizational performance, researchers have defined and measured HCR in various ways. Consequently, it is unclear whether existing measures provide valid inferences about HCR or their relations with other constructs. We conducted this three-study research to address these issues. In Study 1, we reviewed HCR definitions (k = 84) and found that most definitions focus on collective knowledge, skills, and abilities. Recent definitions also tend to include other characteristics (e.g., personality). In Study 2, a content analysis of HCR measures (k = 127) revealed that only 23.6% of the measures focused solely on HCR and they tended to assess only one or two dimensions of the construct (i.e., were deficient). Many measures (46.5%) assessed both HCR and other constructs (i.e., were partially contaminated), and other measures (29.9%) assessed only non-HCR constructs (i.e., were fully contaminated). In Study 3 (k = 94), we found that HCR measures that were less deficient demonstrated stronger criterion-related validity for predicting unit and firm performance. Interestingly, partially contaminated measures were somewhat more predictive than uncontaminated measures (ρ = .35 vs. .25, respectively), mainly because they assessed both HCR and other constructs that are related to performance. Both types of measures demonstrated stronger validity than fully contaminated measures. Overall, findings suggest that extant HCR measures often are deficient and/or contaminated. We discuss implications, as well as offer guidance for measuring HCR in future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
175
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信