Occupant stimulus response workplace productivity and the vexed question of measurement

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper to develop a better understanding of the behavioural challenges in workplace performance evaluation and how the issues raised regarding validity and reliability of Likert scales could be addressed in future occupant surveys.Design/methodology/approachA review of the literature was conducted to identify some of the more important issues in occupant evaluations of built environment performance. Disparate fields of research were particularly given the changing nature of the workplace and work itself. The appropriateness of the Likert scale was then examined in some depth, with evaluation data presented by this method analysed to gauge the extent of error in reporting self‐assessed or perceived workplace productivity.FindingsThe review points to significant challenges in obtaining valid and reliable information in occupant self‐evaluations of workplace performance using linear Likert scales. When the occupant rating is negative, arithmetic means were found to be significantly lower than geometric means. The converse was found to be true for positive ratings. Magnitude estimation using a free modulus approach has been shown to be potentially free of bias and scale limitationsResearch limitations/implicationsThe survey data available for analysis were limited, but the implications of the findings for the credibility of workplace performance evaluation are significant given the widespread use of linear Likert scales. Researchers are encouraged to pursue the questions raised and test the propositions further.Practical implicationsWith modern work becoming more complex, information rich, mobile and team oriented, more sophisticated occupant performance evaluation tools and methods are needed to replace simplistic self‐assessment questionnaires.Originality/valueThis paper addresses the paucity of research into the validity and reliability of self‐assessed measures for workplace productivity. It integrates findings from disparate fields including aviation and cognitive functioning. It presents a stronger behavioural emphasis in evaluation, while encouraging the development of more effective measurement methods.