An instrument for the self‐appraisal of scientific research performance

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to present findings related to an instrument for the self-appraisal of scientists' research performance, and highlight the suitability of self-appraisal instruments for members of the scientific community. Design/methodology/approach -An examination of the literature on self-appraisal and the measurement of scientific research is presented. The initial development of the instrument employed qualitative methods through interview and discussions with PhD-qualified scientific researchers (n ¼ 13). A quantitative investigation of the usefulness of the instrument was then conducted on a sample of biological and chemical research scientists (n ¼ 270). Results were compared with an existing performance measure and examined for representative reliability. Findings -Results suggest that the instrument may be a reliable measure of research performance when used in a non-critical context. Research limitations/implications -While the instrument shows promise, further research is needed to examine aspects of inter-rater reliability. Additional research is also needed to further examine relationships between it and other measures of research performance at the same level of analysis. While the usefulness and validity of this instrument at the "international level" has been examined, further research is needed to examine the relative validity and reliability of the instrument at the "institutional" and "national" levels. Practical implications -The instrument provides a useful and cost-effective tool for use in the performance appraisal process of research scientists, and for use in focusing discussion on performance for developmental purposes. It is also useful as a research tool for the timely and cost-effective measurement of research performance at an institutional, national and international level. Originality/value -The paper presents an original paper and pencil instrument for the appraisal of scientific research performance at an institutional, national, and international level.

The work motivation of research scientists and its effect on research performance

“…As discussed previously, the SARPP was used as the measure of scientific research performance (Ryan and Tipu, ). Table shows the relative distribution of scores for participating research scientist from one to five, with one representing the lowest possible performance score and five representing the highest possible performance score.…”

“…Also, given the nature of their education and training, they represent a group of above average intelligence. Prior validation of the SARPP has shown it to have good face validity among research scientists (Ryan and Tipu, ). It was also shown to have construct validity through the correlation of respondents' aggregate scores on the measure with objective third‐party evaluations of the performance of research departments and display patterns of results consistent with known performance relationships in science, that is, the commonly observed relation between age and research performance.…”

“…Research performance was assessed using the self‐appraisal of research profile and performance (SARPP), which asks scientist to rank their relative performance at different levels of analysis (Ryan and Tipu, ). The logic of the structure of the SARPP is that by requesting self‐evaluations of performance at various levels (organisational, national and international), it encourages a more reflective and attentive response from participants.…”

“…It was also shown to have construct validity through the correlation of respondents' aggregate scores on the measure with objective third‐party evaluations of the performance of research departments and display patterns of results consistent with known performance relationships in science, that is, the commonly observed relation between age and research performance. Considering the specific nature of the population under examination and the prior validation of the SARPP against objective research performance measures, it was deemed a suitable measure of performance in the current study (Mabe and West, ; Ryan and Tipu, ).…”

A longitudinal investigation of work environment stressors on the performance and wellbeing of office workers

“…The measurement of work performance is complex (Ryan and Tipu, 2009) and self-reported measures of work performance are often the only practically available measure of work performance (Pransky et al, 2006). An 11-point scale measured work performance relative to perceived average work performance (0 ¼ 'much less productive than average', 5 ¼ 'about average', 10 ¼ 'much more productive than average').…”