{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029515108924806747, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013352073085031623, 'mean_word_length': 5.592592592592593, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Measuring individual work performance: identifying and selecting indicators.

BACKGROUND
Theoretically, individual work performance (IWP) can be divided into four dimensions: task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance, and counterproductive work behavior. However, there is no consensus on the indicators used to measure these dimensions.


OBJECTIVE
This study was designed to (1) identify indicators for each dimension, (2) select the most relevant indicators, and (3) determine the relative weight of each dimension in ratings of work performance.


METHODS
IWP indicators were identified from multiple research disciplines, via literature, existing questionnaires, and expert interviews. Subsequently, experts selected the most relevant indicators per dimension and scored the relative weight of each dimension in ratings of IWP.


RESULTS
In total, 128 unique indicators were identified. Twenty-three of these indicators were selected by experts as most relevant for measuring IWP. Task performance determined 36% of the work performance rating, while the other three dimensions respectively determined 22%, 20% and 21% of the rating.


CONCLUSIONS
Notable consensus was found on relevant indicators of IWP, reducing the number from 128 to 23 relevant indicators. This provides an important step towards the development of a standardized, generic and short measurement instrument for assessing IWP.