Jump to content

User:Lmthoma/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History

[edit]

The historical development of I-O psychology had parallel developments in the United States and other countries, such as Britain [1], Australia, Germany, the Netherlands [2], and eastern European countres such as Romania [3]. However, many foreign countries, unfortunately, do not have a published English-language account of their development of I-O psychology. The roots of I-O psychology trace back nearly to the beginning of psychology as a science when Wilhelm Wundt founded one of the first psychological laboratories in 1876 in Leipzig, Germany. In the mid 1880s, Wundt trained two psychologists who had a major influence on the eventual emergence of I-O Psychology: Hugo Munsterberg and James McKeen Cattell [4]. Instead of viewing differences as “errors”, Cattell was one of the first to recognize the importance of these differences among individuals as a way of predicting and better understanding their behavior. Walter Dill Scott, who was a contemporary of Cattell, was elected President of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1919, was arguably the most prominent I–O psychologist of his time. Scott, along with Walter Van Dyke Bingham worked at the Carnegie Institute developing methods for selecting and training sales personnel (Ferguson, 1965). The "industrial" side of I–O psychology has its historical origins in research on individual differences, assessment, and the prediction of work performance.This branch crystallized during World War I, in response to the need to rapidly assign new troops to duty stations. Scott and Bingham volunteered to help with the testing and placement of more than a million army recruits. In 1917, together, along with other prominent psychologists, adapted a well-known intelligence test, (the Stanford-Binet test, designed for testing one individual at a time) to make it suitable for mass group testing. This new test form was called the Army Alpha. After the War, the growing industrial base in the US added impetus to I–O psychology. The private industry set out to emulate the successful testing of army personnel, and mental ability testing soon became a commonplace in the work setting. Industrial psychology began to gain prominence when Elton Mayo arrived in the United States in 1924[5]. Mayo was fascinated by not the efficiency of workers, but their emotions and how work may cause workers to act in particular pathological ways. These observations of workers’ thoughts and emotions were studied to see how prone employees would be to resist management attempts to increase productivity and how sympathetic to labor unions they would become. These studies are known as Hawthorne studies. The results of these studies ushered in a radically new movement known as the Human Relations Movement. This movement was interested in the more complicated theories of motivation, the emotional world of the worker, job satisfaction, and interviews with workers.

World War II brought in new problems that led to I-O Psychology's continued development. The war brought renewed interest in ability testing (to accurately place recuits in these new technologically advanced military jobs), the introduction of the assessment center, concern to morale and fatigue of war industry workers, and military intelligence in co ordinance with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Post-Second World War years were a boom time for industry with many jobs to be filled and applicants to be tested. Interestingly, however, when the war ended and the soldiers came back to work, there was an increasing trend towards labor unrest with rising numbers of authorized and unauthorized work stoppages staged by unions and workers. This caused management to grow concern about work productivity and worker attitude surveys became of much interest in the field. Following Industrial Organizational Psychology's admission into Division 14 of the American Psychological Association, there continued to be an influx of new tests for selection, productivity, and workforce stability. This influx continued unabated until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section, Title VII dealt with employment discrimination and required employers to justify and show relevance for the use of tests for selection.

The mid-1960s seemed to mark a line of demarcation between "classic" and "modern" thinking. During this period, the name changed from just industrial psychology to industrial and organizational psychology. The earlier periods addressed work behavior from the individual perspective, examining performance and attitudes of individual workers. Although this was a valuable approach, it became clear that there were other, broader influences not only on individual, but also on group behavior in the work place. Thus, in 1973, "organizational" was added to the name to emphasize the fact that when an individual joins an organization (e.g., the organization that hired him or her), he or she will be exposed to a common goal and a common set of operating procedures.

Research methods

[edit]
See also: psychometrics and statistics

As described above, I–O psychologists are trained in the scientist–practitioner model. I–O psychologists rely on a variety of methods to conduct organizational research. Study designs employed by I–O psychologists include surveys, experiments, quasi-experiments, and observational studies. I–O psychologists rely on diverse data sources including human judgments, historical databases, objective measures of work performance (e.g., sales volume), and questionnaires and surveys.

I–O researchers employ both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Quantitative methods used in I–O psychology include both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (e.g., correlation, multiple regression, and analysis of variance). More advanced statistical methods employed by some I–O psychologists include logistic regression, multivariate analysis of variance, structural equation modeling,[6] and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; also known as multilevel modeling).[7] HLM is particularly applicable to research on team- and organization-level effects on individuals. I–O psychologists also employ psychometric methods including methods associated with classical test theory (CTT),[8] generalizability theory, and item response theory (IRT).[9] In the 1990s, a growing body of empirical research in I–O psychology was influential in the application of meta-analysis, particularly in the area of the stability of research findings across contexts. The most well-known meta-analytic approaches are those associated with Hunter & Schmidt,[10][11][12] Rosenthal,[13][14] and Hedges & Olkin.[15] With the help of meta-analysis, Hunter & Schmidt[16][17] advanced the idea of validity generalization, which suggests that some performance predictors, specifically cognitive ability tests (see especially Hunter [1986][18] and Hunter & Schmidt [1996][19]) have a relatively stable and positive relation to job performance across all jobs. Although not unchallenged, validity generalization has broad acceptance with regard to many selection instruments (e.g. cognitive ability tests, job knowledge tests, work samples, and structured interviews) across a broad range of jobs.

Qualitative methods employed in I–O psychology include content analysis, focus groups, interviews, case studies, and several other observational techniques. I–O research on organizational culture research has employed ethnographic techniques and participant observation to collect data. One well-known qualitative technique employed in I–O psychology is John Flanagan's Critical Incident Technique,[20] which requires "qualified observers" (e.g., pilots in studies of aviation, construction workers in studies of construction projects) to describe a work situation that resulted in a good or bad outcome. Objectivity is ensured when multiple observers identify the same incidents. The observers are also asked to provide information about what the actor in the situation could have done differently to influence the outcome. This technique is then used to describe the critical elements of performance in certain jobs and how worker behavior relates to outcomes. Most notably, this technique has been employed to improve performance among aircraft crews and surgical teams, literally saving thousands of lives since its introduction. An application of the technique in research on coping with job stress comes from O'Driscoll & Cooper.[21]. The resistance to qualitative research resulted from viewing it too excessively subjective. This concern, however, is misplaced due to all methods of research, either qualitative or quantitative, ultimately requiring some sort of interpretation. When a researcher is developing and researching a phenomenon, all information available should be use, regardless of its form. They key is triangulation, which is an approach looking for converging information from different sources to develop that theory [22].

I–O psychologists sometimes use quantitative and qualitative methods in concert. The two are not mutually exclusive [23] For example, when constructing behaviorally-anchored rating scales (BARS), a job analyst may use qualitative methods, such as critical incidents interviews and focus groups to collect data bearing on performance. Then the analyst would have SMEs rate those examples on a Likert scale and compute inter-rater agreement statistics to judge the adequacy of each item. Each potential item would additionally be correlated with an external criterion in order to evaluate its usefulness if it were to be selected to be included in a BARS metric. A simpler example, consider an extended observation of a worker, which might include videotaped episodes of performance - a qualitative measure. The qualitative video could easily be used to develop a frequency count of a particular behavior - a quantitative measure.

Topics

[edit]

Training and training evaluation

[edit]
Main article: Training

Training is the systematic acquisition of skills, concepts, or attitudes that results in improved performance in another environment[24]. Most people hired for a job are not already versed in all the tasks required to perform the job effectively. Evidence indicates that training is effective and that these training expenditures are paying off in terms of higher net sales and gross proftability per employee[25]. Training can be beneficial for the organization and for employees in terms of increasing their value to their organization as well as their employability in the broader marketplace. Many organizations are using training and development as a way to attract and retain their most successful employees.

Similar to performance management (see above), an I–O psychologist would employ a job analysis in concert with principles of instructional design to create an effective training program. A training program is likely to include a summative evaluation at its conclusion in order to ensure that trainees have met the training objectives and can perform the target work tasks at an acceptable level. Training programs often include formative evaluations to assess the impact of the training as the training proceeds. Formative evaluations can be used to locate problems in training procedures and help I–O psychologists make corrective adjustments while the training is ongoing.

The basic foundation for training programs is learning. Learning outcomes can be organized into three broad categories: cognitive, skill-based, and affective outcomes[26]. Cognitive is a type of learning outcome that includes declarative knowledge or the knowledge of rules, fasts, and principles. An example is police officers acquire declarative knowledge about laws and court procedures. Skill-based is a learning outcome that concerns procedural knowledge and the development of motor and technical skills. An example is motor skills that involve the coordination of physical movements such as usinf a special tool or flying a certain aircraft, whereas technical skills might include understanding a certain software program, or exhibiting effective customer relations behaviors. Affective is a type of learning outcome that includes attitudes or beliefs that predispose a person to behave in a certain way. Attitudes can be developed or changed through training programs. Examples of these attitudes are organizational commitment and appreciation of diversity.[27].

Before training design issues are considered, a careful needs analysis is required to develop a systematic understanding of where training is needed, what needs to be taught or trained, and who will be trained[28]. Training needs analysis typically involves a three step process that includes organizational analysis, task analysis and person analysis[29]. Organizational analysis examines organizational goals, available resources, and the organizational environment to determine where training should be directed. This analysis identifies the training needs of different departments or subunits and systematically assessing manager, peer, and technological support for transfer of training. Organizational analysis also takes into account the climate of the organization and its subunits. For example, if a climate for safety is emphasized throughout the organization or in particular parts of the organization (e.g., production), then training needs will likely reflect this emphasis[30]. Task analysis uses the results from job analysis on determining what is needed for successful job performance and then determines what the content of training should be. Task analysis can consist of developing task statements, determining homogeneous task clusters, and identifying KSAOs (knowledge, skills, abilities, other characteristics) required for the job. With organizations increasingly trying to identify "core competencies" that are required for all jobs, task analysis can also include an assessment of competencies[31]. Person analysis identifies which individuals within an organization should receive training and what kind of instruction they need. Employee needs can be assessed using a variety of methods that identify weaknesses that training and development can address. The needs analysis makes it possible to identify the training program's objectives, which in turn, represents the information for both the trainer and trainee about what is to be learned for the benefit of the organization.

Training and outlook

[edit]

Graduate programs

[edit]

A comprehensive list of US and Canadian master's and doctoral programs can be found at the web site of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).[32] Some helpful ways to learn about graduate programs include visiting the web sites on the SIOP list and speaking to I–O faculty at the institutions listed. Admission into I–O psychology PhD programs is highly competitive given that many programs accept a small number of applicants every year.

There are graduate degree programs in I–O psychology outside of the US and Canada. The SIOP web site[32] also provides a comprehensive list of I–O programs in many other countries.

Job outlook

[edit]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007), the job outlook for industrial–organizational psychologists is promising. Businesses enlist the services of these psychologists in order to retain employees and maintain a good work ethic. I–O psychologists specializing in research often conduct studies within companies to aid in marketing research.

According to recent salary and employment surveys conducted by SIOP [33], the median salary for a PhD in I-O psychology was $98,000; for a master's level I-O psychologist was $72,000. The highest paid PhD I-O psychologists in private industry worked in pharmaceuticals and averaged approximately $151,000 per year; the median salary for self-employed consultants was $150,000; those employed in retail, energy, and manufacturing followed closely behind, averaging approximately $133,000. The lowest earners were found in state and local government positions, averaging approximately $77,000. I-O psychologists whose primary responsibility is teaching at private and public colleges and universities often earn additional income from consulting with government and industry [34].

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Chimiel, N. (2000). History and context for work and organizational psychology. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), Introduction to work and organizational psychology :A European Perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
  2. ^ Shimmin, S., & van Strien, P. J. (1998). Hisotry of the psychology of work and organization. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 71-99). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
  3. ^ Pitariu, H. D. (19912). I/O Psychology in Romania: Past, present and intentions. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 29(4), 29-33.
  4. ^ Landy, F. J. (1997). Early influences on the development of industrial and organizational psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 467-477.
  5. ^ Griffin, M. A., Landy, F. J., & Mayocchi, L. (2002). Australian influences on Elton Mayo: The construct o revery in industrial society. History of Psychology, 5(4), 356-375.
  6. ^ Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equations modeling with LISREL. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  7. ^ Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, A.S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  8. ^ Nunnally, J. & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  9. ^ Du Toit, M. (2003) IRT from SSI. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
  10. ^ Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA.
  11. ^ Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (1994). Estimation of sampling error variance in the meta-analysis of correlations: Use of average correlation in the homogeneous case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 171–77.
  12. ^ Law, K.S.; Schmidt, F.L. & Hunter, J.E. (1994). A test of two refinements in procedures for meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 978–86.
  13. ^ Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–92.
  14. ^ Rosenthal, R. & DiMatteo, M.R. (2002). Meta-analysis. In H. Pashler & J. Wixted (Eds.). Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed.), Vol. 4: Methodology in experimental psychology, pp. 391–428. Hoboken, NJ, US: Wiley.
  15. ^ Hedges, L.V. & Olkin, I. (1984). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 573–80.
  16. ^ Hunter, J.E.; Schmidt, F.L. & Pearlman, K. (1981). Task differences as moderators of aptitude test validity in selection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 166–85.
  17. ^ Schmidt, F.L.; Law, K.; Hunter, J.E.; Rothstein, H.R.; Pearlman, K.; McDaniel, M. (1993). Refinements in validity generalization methods: Implications for the situational specificity hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 3–12.
  18. ^ Hunter, J.E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitude, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340–62.
  19. ^ Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F.L. (1996). Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 447–72.
  20. ^ Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The Critical Incident Technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–58.
  21. ^ O'Driscoll, M.P. & Cooper, C.L. (1994). Coping with work-related stress: A critique of existing measures and proposal for an alternative methodology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 343–54.
  22. ^ Rogelberg, S. G., & Brooks-Laber, M. E. (2002). Securing our collective duture: Challenges facing those designing and doing research in industrial and organization psychology. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.). Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 479 – 485). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  23. ^ Rogelberg, S. G., & Brooks-Laber, M. E. (2002). Securing our collective duture: Challenges facing those designing and doing research in industrial and organization psychology. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.). Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 479 – 485). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  24. ^ Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  25. ^ Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P.S., & Bell, S.T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234-245.
  26. ^ Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new metods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311 – 328.
  27. ^ Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S.H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-70). San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.
  28. ^ Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  29. ^ Dierdorff, E. C., & Surface, E. A. (2008). Assessing training needs: Do work experience and capability matter? Human Performance, 21, 28-48.
  30. ^ Zohar, D. (2002a). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 587-596.
  31. ^ Shippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., et al. (2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740.
  32. ^ a b Graduate Training Programs (visited web site on March 22, 2009)
  33. ^ Khanna, C., & Medsker, G. J. (2007). 2006 Income and employment survey results for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
  34. ^ Medsker, G. J., Katkowski, D. A., & Furr, D. (2005). 2003 employment survey results for the Society Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lmthoma/sandbox&oldid=550635210"