Videotaping of assessment center exercises has become an increasingly common practice, yet little is known about the impact of video technology on rating accuracy. This study compared ratings of a group discussion made after live observation (direct), after viewing a video (indirect), or after viewing a video with opportunities to pause and rewind (controlled). Results indicated some differences in observational accuracy but not in rating accuracy. Implications for the use of video technology in assessment centers are discussed.From 1986 to 1991, the National Football League (NFL) used instant-replay officiating for clarifying situations where officials had difficulty in observing or observers had differing opinions on what had occurred. The opportunity to look carefully and repeatedly at a segment of behavior on the playing field was seen as an aid for situations where the observation ability of human judges was limited. "Replay officiating" would be an ideal tool for examining work performance, given the limited observational capacities of raters in the workplace. Unfortunately, in many work settings, the use of video to capture job performance is impractical or impossible. One rating setting where videotaping of performance is possible and has become widespread is the assessment center. Bray and Byham (1991) noted that videotaping is being used to replace direct observation of assessees by assessors, allowing the evaluation of candidates at remote locations and the use of "professional assessors." Other stated advantages of videotaping assessment center exercises include a reduction in assessor fatigue that occurs from continual attention to the observation of others

No abstract

Burnout amongst healthcare employees is considered an epidemic; prior research indicates a host of associated negative consequences, though more research is needed to understand the predictors of burnout across healthcare employees. All employees in a cancer-focused academic healthcare institution were invited to participate in a bi-annual online confidential employee survey. A 72% response rate yielded 9979 complete responses. Participants completed demographic items, a validated single-item measure of burnout, and items measuring eight employee job attitudes toward their jobs and organization (agility, development, alignment, leadership, trust, resources, safety, and teamwork). Department-level characteristics, turnover, and vacancy were calculated for group level analyses. A univariate F test revealed differences in burnout level by department type (F (3, 9827) = 54.35, p < 0.05) and post hoc Scheffe’s tests showed employees in clinical departments reported more burnout than other departments. Hierarchical multiple regression revealed that employee demographic and job-related variables (including department type) explained 8% of the variance of burnout (F (19, 7880) = 37.95, p < 0.001), and employee job attitudes explained an additional 27% of the variance of burnout (F (8, 7872) = 393.18, p < 0.001). Relative weights analysis at the group level showed that, of the constructs measured, alignment is the strongest predictor of burnout, followed by trust and leadership. The relationships are inverse in nature, such that more alignment is related to less burnout. Turnover and vacancy rates did not predict group level burnout. The results reported here provide evidence supporting a shift in the focus of research and practice from detection to prevention of employee burnout and from individual-focused interventions to organization-wide interventions to prevent burnout.

In contrast to the view that survey key driver analysis (SKDA) is a misused and blind empirical process, we suggest it is a reasonable, hypothesis-driven approach that builds on cumulative knowledge drawn from both the literature and practice, and requires reasoned judgment about the relationships of individual items to the constructs they represent and the criteria of interest. The logic of key driver analysis in applied settings is no different than the logic of its application in fundamental research regarding employee attitudes (e.g., Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel, & LeBreton, 2012). However, there are important survey design and analysis issues with respect to how key driver analyses are best conducted. Just some of these are discussed below.

No abstract