Wissenschafts-/ Praxiskolloquium Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie

Errors, Violations, and Climates for Error and Safety: A Theoretical Integration and Investigation of Health Care Correlates

David A. Hofmann, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

In this presentation, I will briefly review my past research investigating safety climate and then turn to a more recent investigation of both safety and error climates. For this latter project, we make the argument that research investigations of safety and error climates - although both addressing failures in organizations - have proceeded independently from one another. Drawing on the theoretical distinction between failures in organizations arising from violations and those arising from errors, we argue that safety and error climates have different theoretical foundations and orientations. Based on these different foundations and orientations (i.e., the prevention of violations versus the management of errors), it was hypothesized that these two climates would be empirically distinct and differentially related to various health care outcomes. The results revealed that safety and error climates were not empirically distinct, but that one overarching climate dimension was significantly related to procedural justice climate, patient satisfaction, patient perceptions of nurse responsiveness, nurse job satisfaction, medication errors, nurse back injuries, and patient urinary tract infections. In light of these results, a theoretical model integrating safety and error climate with human factors/systems engineering and human resource management systems is developed in order to guide future research investigating failure in organizations.

Models and Methods for Understanding the Role of Self-Efficacy (Expectancy) in Human Motivation

Jeff Vancouver, Michigan State University

Expectancy concepts, like self-efficacy, have long been associated with human motivation. Most theories describe the relationship as positive, but not all of them. Indeed, several forms (i.e., empirical models) have emerged over the years, including negative, inverted-U's, and discontinuous, nonmonotonic ones. Moreover, each has empirical support. In this talk I argue that the form of the relationship found might have a lot to do with the methods used to examine the relationship. Several studies are presented that overcome the limitations of previous research and support the discontinuous, nonmonotonic model. Although this is the most complex of the empirical models, in the final part of the talk I describe a parsimonious, conceptual model that accounts for the effects found.

Issues and opportunities with using situational judgment tests in high-stakes selection settings

Filip Lievens, Ghent University

Situational judgment tests (SJTs) have become increasingly popular. SJTs present applicants with written or video-based work-related scenarios. For each situation, applicants are asked to indicate how they would most likely respond. SJTs present a possible alternative to more costly high-fidelity simulation such as assessment centers when one has to test a large group of people (e.g., public sector selection or admission to college). This presentation delves into the advantages and disadvantages of the use of SJTs in these so-called high stakes selection situations. Specifically, we seek a research-based answer to the following questions: Are SJTs predictive valid? Is the validity of SJTs higher when they are presented in a video-based format versus a written format? Do SJTs measure something different than cognitive ability? How do participants react to SJTs? Are SJTs prone to faking and retest effects?

Letztes Update: 2005-11-24

Anregungen+Feedback zur Website: Christina Werner

Verantwortlich für den Inhalt: Prof. Dr. Dieter Zapf

© Arbeits- & Organisationspsychologie - Universität Frankfurt | Barrierefreiheit (Accessibility)