International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Factor analysis-validated comprehensive employee job performance scale

Khahan Na-Nan, Kanokporn Chaiprasit, Peerapong Pukkeeree,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Khahan Na-Nan, Kanokporn Chaiprasit, Peerapong Pukkeeree, (2018) "Factor analysis-validated
comprehensive employee job performance scale", International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 35 Issue: 10, pp.2436-2449, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-06-2017-0117
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-06-2017-0117
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Downloaded on: 26 January 2019, At: 19:33 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 123 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
,"Factors affecting job performance: an integrative review of literature", Management Research
Review, Vol. 0 Iss 0 pp. - <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2018-0051">https://
doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2018-0051</a>
(2012),"Development of an individual work performance questionnaire", International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 Iss 1 pp. 6-28 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/17410401311285273">https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401311285273</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:178063 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

IJQRM RELIABILITY PAPER

35,10
Factor analysis-validated
comprehensive employee job
2436 performance scale
Received 7 August 2017 Khahan Na-Nan and Kanokporn Chaiprasit
Revised 23 November 2017 Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Thanyaburi, Thailand, and
Accepted 24 November 2017
Peerapong Pukkeeree
Ramkhamhaeng University, Bangkok, Thailand
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop an employee job performance (EJP) scale questionnaire
that encompasses the job time, job quality and job quantity dimensions of employee performance.
Design/methodology/approach – In this study, the questionnaire questions were first validated using
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and then confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) along the three performance
dimensions. The research samples were auto-parts assembly line workers. The factor analysis results
confirmed the validity of the questionnaire as a reliable employee performance evaluation tool, as evidenced
by the composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE).
Findings – The questionnaire questions identified three factors of EJP, namely, job time, job quality and job
quantity, with 13 items. The factor analysis results confirmed the validity of the questionnaire as a reliable
employee performance evaluation tool, as evidenced by a CR of 0.894 and AVE of 0.739, in addition to
χ2 ¼ 63.340, df ¼ 54, p ¼ 0.180, goodness of fit index ¼ 0.976, adjusted goodness of fit index ¼ 0.960,
RMSEA ¼ 0.021 and root mean square residue ¼ 0.014.
Research limitations/implications – The EJP scale questionnaire was examined using only EFA and
CFA. These scales are expected to help academics, researchers and practitioners test theories. Because of the
features of the sample, the final results should be considered carefully.
Practical implications – Importantly, the factor analysis results suggest that the proposed EJP scale
questionnaire can be applied to various industries and settings either as is or with minimal modifications.
Originality/value – The EJP questionnaire is novel and can serve as an excellent EJP tool to measure
employees’ behavioral output. The questionnaire can provide empirical data on employee performance output
based on the employee’s perspective.
Keywords Job performance, Employee job performance, Job performance factors, Job performance scale,
Job performance questionnaire
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Employee job performance (EJP) is an indicator of an organization’s efficiency and productivity
(Colquitt et al., 2011). Additionally, EJP is an important contributing factor to organizational
success because it is an appraisal of employees’ job performance. Additionally, job performance
is a vital criterion for companies and for organizational outcomes and success (Lakhal et al.,
2006). For this reason, businesses should strive to improve employee performance (Na-Nan,
2016; Na-Nan et al., 2017; Waal & Oudshoorn, 2015; Welbourne et al., 1998).
Considering the significance of employee performance on profitability and on long-term
organizational success, it is of paramount importance to develop a reliable tool to gauge EJP
on a continual basis. Many previous studies confirm that measuring employee performance
contributes to the attainment of organizational goals, including Ahmed et al. (2013),
International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management Bartuševičienė and Šakalytė (2013), Frederiksen et al. (2017), Jeong and Phillips (2001),
Vol. 35 No. 10, 2018
pp. 2436-2449
Koopmans et al. (2014), Peterson and Plowman (1953), Peterson et al. (1962), Swanson (2007)
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
and Yusoff et al. (2014). According to Jeong and Phillips (2001) and Bartuševičienė and
DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-06-2017-0117 Šakalytė (2013), an employee performance measurement should take into account the
 resource-efficiency dimension of job performance. Among the first to conduct research EJP scale
on job performance, Peterson and Plowman (1953) and Na-Nan and Chalermthanakij (2012)
stated that the measurement of EJP requires the consideration of three job performance
dimensions: job time, job quantity, and job quality.
Thus, attention should be paid to the scale used to measure employee performance. Both
researchers and practitioners can benefit from good instruments to measure employee
performance, as these instruments will help to illustrate the output of employee behavior 2437
(Groen et al., 2017). However, existing research on instruments to measure employee
performance and job performance has focused on either one or two of the performance
dimensions, including Charbonnier-Voirin and Roussel (2012), Yusoff et al. (2014) and
Koopmans et al. (2014). Research on employee performance questionnaires and measurement
scales has been found in several literature reviews using data from ProQuest, EBSCO,
Emerald, ScienceDirect and SpringerLink but have not an included an up-to-date validation of
comprehensive scales. As a result, there is a lack of an all-encompassing job performance
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

evaluation tool, and, therefore, it is difficult to improve inadequate employee performance

outcomes. Additionally, practitioners need instruments to assess employee performance
(Frederiksen et al., 2017). To address these issues, this empirical research has proposed a
“comprehensive” EJP scale questionnaire that encompasses the three employee performance
dimensions (i.e. job time, job quality and job quantity dimensions). First, we develop a three-
dimensional EJP scale questionnaire that includes job time, job quality and job quantity.
Second, we validate the questionnaire using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Finally, we examine EJP with the developed questionnaire.

Literature review
EJP assesses whether an employee performs his or her job well. Job performance has been
studied academically as part of industrial and organizational psychology and is a
component of human resources development and management. Additionally, EJP is a key
criterion for organizational outputs, outcomes and success (Orpen, 1995; Pradhan and Jena,
2017; Yusoff et al., 2014). According to Hedayati Mehdiabadi and Li (2016) and Rose (2016),
organizations make various resources available to enhance EJP. EJP is an indicator of
individual employees’ efficiency and productivity and organizational operational efficiency
and long-term success. Thus, an effective job performance evaluation tool can contribute to
enhancing employees’ work performance and the attainment of organizational goals
(Star et al., 2016; Stanislav and Walter, 2002).
Regarding to Petsri (2014), job performance refers to employees’ behaviors related to
their responsible tasks and organizational goals. In fact, individual job-related behaviors
can be categorized into two types: behaviors within the context of responsible assignments
or as specified in the job description and behaviors performed in response to circumstances,
not instructions. According to Steers (1991), EJP is the extent to which employees fulfill their
assignments and meet the expected organizational goals. In addition, Cummings and
Schwab (1973), Gardner and Schermerhorn (2004), Schermerhorn et al. (1995) and Steers
(1991) documented that EJP is influenced by individual’s ability, interest, satisfaction,
motivation and environment and the management styles employed in the workplace.
Several concepts and taxonomies that consider these aspects have been studied and
developed in the past few decades to assess EJP. Table I presents the approaches to assess
EJP and lists significant related constructs. In short, job performance can be defined as the
behaviors that employees display at work that amount to the delivery of outcomes desired
by the organization in terms of job quality, job quantity and job time.
Job quality is vital to an organization’s products and services (Liu and Xu, 2006).
According to Peterson and Plowman (1953), job quality involves meeting the set criteria and
standards with regard to the procurement, production, quality inspection and delivery of
 IJQRM goods and services. Job quality can also be used as a process control and quality
35,10 determinant within the context of quality control and inspection (Chen et al., 1997).
According to Fynes and Voss (2001), measuring organizational performance requires the
measurement of employees’ job quality because it reflects individual employees’
attentiveness to the work-related activities. Specifically, the job quality dimension of
employee performance emphasizes instilling awareness among employees of the
2438 significance of the quality of products and services (Gilmore, 1985).
Job quantity refers to the units of output produced by employees’ behaviors, such as the
product quantity, waste quantity and sales figures (Peterson and Plowman, 1953).
According to Koopmans et al. (2014), measuring job quantity is essential to an employee’s
work-related behaviors, as job quantity (i.e. units of output) reflects the deployment of the
employee’s physical and mental abilities to fulfill his or her responsibilities. Furthermore,
according to Petsri (2014), job quantity is a straightforward measure of EJP, that is, whether
an employee meets a set quantity. Job quantity is impartial since its measurement is based
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

on a tangible and objective result or a quantity produced by an employee (Cheng and

Kalleberg, 1996; Flap and Völker, 2004; Furnham and Stringfield, 1998).
Job time concerns the amount of time required to complete work-related activities in
relation to the difficulty of the tasks. Employees satisfy job-time goals as long as the
required tasks are carried out accurately and within the reasonable amount of time and
products or services are delivered on schedule (Peterson and Plowman, 1953). According to
Na-Nan and Chalermthanakij (2012), job time should be considered when measuring EJP. If
the time dimension is disregarded, employees may exploit such a shortcoming at the
expense of the organization’s overall performance. In addition, according to Ahmad et al.
(2012) and Njagi and Malel (2012), the job time dimension of performance drives and directs
employees to perform tasks and deliver outcomes in a timely manner.

Scale development
An important step in the development of the scale is pretesting items for content sufficiency
in order to ensure that the final questionnaire demonstrate construct reliability and validity,
as conceptual inconsistency may impede these two factors. In the development of a scale
questionnaire to assess EJP, researchers have adapted conceptual theory (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988; Bearden and Sharma, 2003; Webb‐Robertson et al., 2011). The first phase
included investigating the available literature and correlated EJP scales. A content analysis
of factors of the three different dimensions found to be associated with the EJP construct
was conducted. These dimensions are job quality, job quantity and job time. The questions
in our 13-item questionnaire corresponding to our target dimensions were developed by
considering the factors shown in Table II. A common procedure requires participants to sort
items based on their similarity to construct definitions. Many methods to conduct content
assessments employ sorting techniques to quantitatively assess the content sufficiency of a
set of developed items (Schriesheim et al., 1993). This step can be conducted by experts in a

Authors Aspects of EJP

Job quality Chen et al. (1997), Fynes and Voss (2001), Gilmore (1985), Liu and Xu (2006),
Peterson and Plowman (1953)
Job quantity Cheng and Kalleberg (1996), Flap and Völker (2004), Furnham and Stringfield (1998),
Table I. Koopmans et al. (2014), Peterson and Plowman (1953), Petsri (2014)
Identification Job time Ahmad et al. (2012), Na-Nan and Chalermthanakij (2012), Njagi and Malel (2012),
of significant Peterson and Plowman (1953)
constructs of EJP Source: Authors’ findings
 Question Notation Description
EJP scale
1 Per 1 Tasks are performed attentively and correctly
2 Per 2 Tasks are completed as per the specifications and standards
3 Per 3 Materials and tools meet the set criteria and standards
4 Per 4 Quality inspection is conducted prior to the delivery of goods or services
5 Per 5 Products or services meet the expectations of customers
6 Per 6 The units of output are in sync with the number of employees 2439
7 Per 7 The units of output meet organizational expectations
8 Per 8 The units of output under my responsibility correspond to my skills and ability
9 Per 9 The quantity assignment is always fulfilled
10 Per 10 Tasks are normally completed on schedule Table II.
11 Per 11 Tasks are carried out within a reasonable amount of time The EJP
12 Per 12 The delivery of goods or services is conducted in a timely fashion questionnaire
13 Per 13 Workers achieve time-related organizational goals questions
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

content domain. Then, analysis of variance techniques were utilized to statistically test for
content sufficiency. This step can be conducted with a relatively small sample. Note that the
development of the scale provides evidence that the items represent a reasonable measure of
the construct under examination and reduce the need for subsequent scale modification. The
retained items from the analysis can be used for further data collection with some
confidence. If the items are not retained, additional items can be generated in this phase.
The second phase was determining the population and sample size. The research
population was 2,735 assembly line workers of 12 automobile parts manufacturing plants in
Thailand’s Navanakorn Industrial Estate (Department of Industrial Works, 2015). In this
study, the initially sampled workers were identified by stratified random sampling to
account for the unequal numbers of workers in different plants; then, simple random
sampling was applied to determine the final sample of workers.
This study recruited two groups of 260 sampled workers each. The first group was used to
validate the EJP scale questionnaire using EFA and CFA, and the second group was,
at the request of management, used to gauge the job performance of the workers at the 12
manufacturing plants. The sample size was determined following Lindeman et al. (1980) and
Siddiqui (2013), who suggested that the sample size equals 20 times the number of questions.
Since the scale questionnaire contains 13 questions, each sample included 260 workers.
The 13-question EJP scale questionnaire was created based on EJP concepts and theories by
Ahmad et al. (2012), Chen et al. (1997), Cheng and Kalleberg (1996), Flap and Völker (2004),
Furnham and Stringfield (1998), Fynes and Voss (2001), Gilmore (1985), Koopmans et al. (2014),
Liu and Xu (2006), Na-Nan and Chalermthanakij (2012), Njagi and Malel (2012), Peterson and
Plowman (1953) and Petsri (2014). The researchers synthesized and defined three EJP factors
and then developed the questionnaires from three factors – job time, job quality and job
quantity – which were assessed with four, five and four questions, respectively. A five-point
Likert scale was used in the self-assessed data collection, where 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 denote strongly
disagree, disagree, indifferent, agree and strongly agree, respectively, consistent with Miller
et al. (2009), Bayraktar et al. (2008) and Yusof and Aspinwall (1999), who proposed that a
measurement scale be utilized with self-assessment questions.
To determine whether the items were categorized according to Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), Netemeyer et al. (2003) and Webb-Robertson et al. (2011), an analysis of variance was
conducted. First, the mean score for all items on each of the job time, job quality and job
quantity scales was calculated. Then, a comparison of means across the three dimensions
was conducted to identify items that were evaluated appropriately (i.e. to identify whether
an item was statistically significantly higher on the appropriate definition; p o0.05).
 IJQRM The results of this analysis revealed that 13 items were classified in a manner consistent
35,10 with Anderson and Gerbing (1988), Netemeyer et al. (2003) and Webb-Robertson et al. (2011).
These results provided support for the proposed dimensionality of the constructs suggested
by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), Netemeyer et al. (2003) and Webb-Robertson et al. (2011).
The questionnaire questions were reviewed by a panel of five qualified experts in
management, human resources management, human resources development, industrial
2440 psychology and research measurement, and the evaluation fields satisfied the content
validity requirements, as each question’s index of item-objective congruence was greater
than 0.6. In addition, the questionnaire questions were trialed with a group of 30 auto-parts
assembly line workers in another industrial estate to determine the internal consistency and
reliability. The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the questionnaire is 0.952, with the total item
correlation in the range of 0.713–0.823.

Data analysis and discussion

Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Table II tabulates the 13 questions of the EJP scale questionnaire, and Table III (the first
sample group) tabulates their Pearson’s coefficients of correlation. In addition, Bartlett’s
sphericity test and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measures of sampling adequacy are 3,802.228
( po 0.001) and 0.941, respectively.
Table IV (the first sample group) presents the EFA, which describes the construct
validity of the EJP. Three factors are extracted by principal component analysis at an
eigenvalue greater than 1.00, and the researchers also used a scree test to define these
factors (the test assumes that the significant factors have a large variance, so it orders the
factors by variance and then plots the variance against the number of factors) (Tran et al.,
2013). The varimax rotation with Kaiser’s normalization was analyzed to reclassify the
components in order to increase the explainability of these factors. The cut-off point for
factor loadings was set at 0.40. Four items – questions 1, 2, 5 and 12 – were cross-loaded,
with factor loadings of more than 0.40 for two factors; we assign these questions to the
corresponding domains based on the largest factor loading and the nature of the question
and EJP concepts and theories. The EFA results of the performance questionnaire are
categorized into three dimensions of performance (latent factors): job time, job quality and
job quantity. The job time dimension of employee performance (Factor I) encompasses
questions (Per) 10–13, with factor weights of 0.693–0.829. The job quality dimension (Factor
II) includes questions 1–5, with factor weights of 0.704–0.832, while questions 6–9 constitute
the job quantity dimension of employee performance, whose factor weights are in the range
of 0.690–0.832. The eigenvalues of the job time, job quality and job quantity factors are
7.698, 1.079 and 1.002, respectively, with the accumulated percentage of variance of 75.226.
Table V tabulates the first- and second-order CFA results of the questionnaire and the
latent factors. For the job time dimension (Factor I), questions (Per) 10–13 exhibit factor
loadings of 0.830–0.875 with R2 of 0.688–0.766. For the job quality dimension (Factor II),
questions 1–5 exhibit factor loadings of 0.735–0.826 with R2 of 0.552–0.682, while questions
6–9, which constitute the job quantity dimension (Factor III), have factor loadings of
0.796–0.886 with R2 of 0.633–0.785.
Figure 1 illustrates the structural model of the EJP; the first- and second-order CFA were
sequentially carried out on the 13 questions and on the three latent factors (the job time, job
quality and job quantity dimensions). In addition, χ2 ¼ 63.340, df ¼ 54, p ¼ 0.180, goodness
of fit index (GFI) ¼ 0.976, adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) ¼ 0.960, RMSEA ¼ 0.021
and root mean square residue (RMR) ¼ 0.014, consistent with Wiratchai (2000), in which
both the GFI and the AGFI should be close to 1 and the RMR should not exceed 0.02.
Table VI tabulates the construct validity of the first- and second-order CFA results.
The factor loadings associated with the first-order CFA are in the range of 0.735–0.886, at
the 0.1 percent (0.001) significance level. According to Kim and Mueller (1978), factor
 Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Per 1 Per 2 Per 3 Per 4 Per 5 Per 6 Per 7 Per 8 Per 9 Per 10 Per 11 Per 12 Per 13

Per 1 1
Per 2 0.644** 1
Per 3 0.637** 0.672** 1
Per 4 0.520** 0.504** 0.555** 1
Per 5 0.529** 0.577** 0.573** 0.697** 1
Per 6 0.383** 0.447** 0.447** 0.446** 0.540** 1
Per 7 0.392** 0.480** 0.452** 0.446** 0.571** 0.608** 1
Per 8 0.481** 0.452** 0.509** 0.556** 0.632** 0.761** 0.673** 1
Per 9 0.481** 0.524** 0.563** 0.480** 0.601** 0.783** 0.581** 0.825** 1
Per 10 0.516** 0.563** 0.513** 0.451** 0.445** 0.404** 0.449** 0.449** 0.497** 1
Per 11 0.511** 0.516** 0.505** 0.432** 0.445** 0.414** 0.432** 0.445** 0.497** 0.616** 1
Per 12 0.557** 0.586** 0.539** 0.543** 0.568** 0.474** 0.451** 0.517** 0.557** 0.598** 0.635** 1
Per 13 0.580** 0.567** 0.536** 0.463** 0.512** 0.426** 0.462** 0.452** 0.519** 0.712** 0.622** 0.646** 1
Notes: *,** Denote po 0.05 and po 0.01, respectively
2441

questionnaire
EJP scale

questions in the EJP

of correlation of the 13
Table III.
Pearson’s coefficients
 IJQRM Question Common factor Factor weight
35,10 I II III

Per 1 0.744 0.709

Per 2 0.754 0.737
Per 3 0.757 0.745
Per 4 0.731 0.724
2442 Per 5 0.766 0.704
Per 6 0.716 0.832
Per 7 0.743 0.718
Per 8 0.804 0.801
Per 9 0.816 0.690
Per 10 0.773 0.795
Per 11 0.773 0.798
Per 12 0.820 0.693
Per 13 0.799 0.829
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Table IV. Initial eigenvalues 7.698 1.079 1.002

The EFA results of % of variance 59.216 8.302 7.707
the EJP scale Note: The extraction method is principal factor analysis, and the rotation method is varimax with
questionnaire Kaiser normalization

Main indicator (latent factors) Question Factor loading R2

Job time Per 10 0.855*** 0.731

b ¼ 0.861*** Per 11 0.830*** 0.688
R2 ¼ 0.742 Per 12 0.842*** 0.709
Per 13 0.875*** 0.766
Job quality Per 1 0.782*** 0.612
b ¼ 0.881*** Per 2 0.826*** 0.682
R2 ¼ 0.776 Per 3 0.799*** 0.639
Per 4 0.743*** 0.552
Per 5 0.735*** 0.540
Job quantity Per 6 0.796*** 0.633
b ¼ 0.837*** Per 7 0.799*** 0.639
R2 ¼ 0.701 Per 8 0.886*** 0.785
Table V. Per 9 0.857*** 0.735
The results of the
first- and second-order First order: χ ¼2 64.410, df ¼ 49, p ¼ 0.069, GIF ¼ 0.975, AGIF ¼ 0.954, RMSEA ¼ 0.028, RMR ¼ 0.015
2

CFA of the Second order: χ ¼ 63.340, df ¼ 54, p ¼ 0.180, GIF ¼ 0.976, AGIF ¼ 0.960, RMSEA ¼ 0.021, RMR ¼ 0.014
EJP questionnaire Notes: b is the factor weight, and R2 indicates the accuracy. ***Indicates the 0.001 significance level

loadings greater than 0.3 are statistically significant. By comparison, the composite
reliability (CR) of the first-order CFA construct validity of the job time dimension is largest
(0.912), followed by the job quality (0.902) and quantity (0.884) dimensions. The
corresponding average variance extracted (AVE) values are in the range of 0.604–0.723,
whereby an AVE above 0.5 is statistically significant (Piriyakul, 2016). Meanwhile,
the factor loadings associated with the second-order CFA are in the range of 0.837–0.881,
at the 0.1 percent (0.001) significance level. The CR and the AVE of the second-order CFA
construct validity are 0.894 and 0.739, respectively. According to Piriyakul (2016), an AVE
above 0.5 is regarded as statistically significant.
The findings of the analysis verify that the 13-question scale questionnaire is
applicable to the evaluation of EJP and that the question items (questions 1–13) constitute
 Per 10 0.73
EJP scale
0.742

5
85
Per 11 0.69

0.
30
0.8
Time
0.842
0. Per 12 0.71
87
5

0.77
2443
Per 13
1
86

Per 1 0.61
0.

82
0.776 Per 2 0.68

0.7
26
0.8
Quality 0.799 Per 3 0.64
Performance 0.881
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

0.7
43

0.7
Per 4 0.55

35
Per 5 0.54
0.
83
7

Per 6 0.63
6

0.701
79

Per 7 0.67
0.

9
0.79
Quantity
0.88
6
0. Per 8 0.79
85
7

Per 9 0.73
Figure 1.
EJP structural model
Notes: 2 = 63.340, df = 54, p = 0.180, GIF = 0.976, AGIF = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.021, RMR = 0.014

the three job performance dimensions (latent factors): the job time, job quality and
job quantity dimensions (Chen et al., 1997; Fynes and Voss, 2001; Koopmans et al., 2014;
Liu and Xu, 2006; Na-Nan and Chalermthanakij, 2012; Peterson and Plowman, 1953;
Petsri, 2014).
Table VII presents the means and standard deviations (SD) of the second group of
workers (another 260 workers) sampled at the request of management with regard to the
three performance factors (the job time, quality and quality dimensions). The overall
average (mean) of 4.114 out of 5 points (SD ¼ 0.581) indicates that the majority of the
respondents viewed their work-related performance to be high. By comparison, the job time
dimension exhibits the largest mean (4.181), followed by the job quality and quantity
dimensions of 4.102 and 4.062, respectively, suggesting that the workers attached the
greatest importance to the job time dimension.
Table VIII tabulates the statistical results of the second group of sampled
workers by gender. The finding reveals that gender ( p ¼ 0.55) is statistically
insignificant ( p W 0.05). Meanwhile, Table IX presents the statistical values of the
identical sample group by age, marital status, education, work experience and income.
The analysis shows that the age ( p ¼ 0.861) and marital status (0.276) variables
are statistically insignificant ( p W 0.05). In contrast, the education ( p ¼ 0.016), work
experience (0.012) and income (0.009) variables are statistically significant ( p o 0.05),
which suggests that employee performance is influenced by the levels of education,
 IJQRM Observable
35,10 variable 1st-order CFA construct validity 2nd-order CFA construct validity
Average
Latent factors/ Factor Composite variance Factor Composite Average variance
questions Loading reliability extracted loading reliability extracted

Employee job 0.894 0.739

2444 performance
Job time dimension 0.912 0.723 0.861
Per 10 0.855
Per 11 0.830
Per 12 0.842
Per 13 0.875
Job quality dimension 8.84 0.604 0.881
Per 1 0.388
Per 2 0.826
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Per 3 0.799
Per 4 0.743
Per 5 0.735
Table VI. Job quantity dimension 0.902 0.697 0.837
The construct Per 6 0.796
validity of the Per 7 0.799
first- and second-order Per 8 0.886
CFA results Per 9 0.857

Table VII.
Statistical results of Performance factors Mean SD Interpretation
EJP of the second
group of sampled Job quality 4.102 0.638 High
workers by the three Job quantity 4.062 0.651 High
performance Job time 4.181 0.680 High
dimensions Total 4.114 0.581 High

Table VIII.
Statistical results of Variable N M SD t p
EJP of the second
group of sampled Male 86 4.212 0.486 1.928 0.055
workers by gender Female 174 4.065 0.618

experience and income. This finding is consistent with Yaghoubi et al. (2013), who
conducted research on the association between demographics and employee performance
in the nursing industry.

Conclusion
This empirical research proposed an EJP scale questionnaire that encompasses the job time,
job quality and job quantity dimensions of employee performance. The questionnaire was
validated using EFA and CFA with 260 sampled workers. The factor analysis results
confirm the validity of the 13-question scale questionnaire as a reliable employee
performance evaluation tool, as evidenced by the CR and AVE of 0.894 and
 Variable Variance SS df MS F p
EJP scale
Age BG 0.445 4 0.111 0.326 0.861
WG 87.135 255 0.342
Total 87.850 259 0.873
Marital status BG 0.873 2 0.473 1.291 0.276
WG 86.707 257 0.337
Total 87.580 259 2445
Education BG 4.092 4 0.166 3.125 0.016
WG 83.488 255 0.128
Total 87.580 259
Work experience BG 3.655 3 2.18 3.717 0.012 Table IX.
WG 83.924 256 0.328 Statistical results of
EJP of the second
Total 87.580 259
group of sampled
Income BG 5.148 5 1.030 3.173 0.009 workers by age,
WG 82.431 254 0.325 marital status,
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Total 87.580 259 education, work

Note: BG and WG denote between group and within group, respectively experience and income

0.739, respectively. Moreover, at the request of management, the scale questionnaire was
applied to another 260 sampled workers to gauge the workers’ job performance along the
three performance dimensions and the findings presented.

Theoretical implications
The findings of this research support previous studies that include the job time, job quality
and job quantity dimensions of EJP (Ahmad et al., 2012; Cheng and Kalleberg, 1996; Flap
and Völker, 2004; Furnham and Stringfield, 1998; Fynes and Voss, 2001; Gilmore, 1985;
Koopmans et al., 2014; Liu and Xu, 2006; Na-Nan and Chalermthanakij, 2012; Njagi and
Malel, 2012; Peterson and Plowman, 1953; Petsri, 2014). The results of this study, along with
those regarding earlier concepts and theories of EJP, indicate that researchers and
academics can use the scale questionnaire proposed here, as it provides guidelines for an
integrated EJP measurement or evaluation of the end results of employee behavior. In
addition, they can be used as 13-scale questions for further research on employee
performance. The foundation of this research takes a step toward an intensive, sophisticated
understanding of the assessment of EJP; in doing so, it advances our understanding of the
way to measure and consider EJP in organizations. The results of this study, consistent with
Masood Abdulla et al. (2006), stated that having reliability and validity gauges can improve
internal performance outputs that support and help to create high EJP.

Practical implications
Practitioners can use the proposed scale as an assessment tool for the effective evaluation of
employee performance. In addition, the validation of the EJP questionnaire has other
important implications for practitioners to measure the job time, job quality and job
quantity that employees deliver to organizations. According to the findings of this study,
the instrument shows strong significance for all three dimensions. Practitioners – especially
human resources practitioners – can therefore implement measures to investigate employee
performance using this study.

Limitations
According to Carlos and Rodrigues (2016), the rational method of synthesizing and theory
building may be affected by the participants’ and researchers’ individual bias. Although this
 IJQRM bias may also have occurred in the data collection and reporting for this study, the
35,10 researchers addressed bias concerns in designing the conceptual approach. Further, the
scale questionnaires were examined in a Thai cultural context, so we cannot assert that
these findings can be applied to all cultural contexts. Aguinis et al. (2001) noted that
researchers should take into account that politics, culture, economics, technology and
language might affect the validation of a scale questionnaire. Thus, it is important to
2446 cross-validate measures for not only one context (the Thai context), but also for many other
contexts to verify the validity and reliability of the performance management instrument.

References
Aguinis, H., Henle, C.A. and Ostroff, C. (2001), “Measurement in work and organizational psychology”,
in Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial,
Work and Organizational Psychology, Sage, London, pp. 27-50.
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Ahmad, N.L., Mohd. Yusuf, A.N., Mohamed Shobri, N.D. and Wahab, S. (2012), “The relationship
between time management and job performance in event management”, Procedia – Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 937-941.
Ahmed, I., Sultana, I., Paul, S.K. and Azeem, A. (2013), “Employee performance evaluation: a fuzzy
approach”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 7,
pp. 718-734.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Bartuševičienė, I. and Šakalytė, E. (2013), “Organizational assessment: effectiveness vs. efficiency”,
Social Transformations in Contemporary Society, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 45-53.
Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E. and Zaim, S. (2008), “An instrument for measuring the critical
factors of TQM in Turkish higher education”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 19 No. 6,
pp. 551-574.
Bearden, W. and Sharma, S. (2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Carlos, V.S. and Rodrigues, R.G. (2016), “Development and validation of a self-reported measure of job
performance”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 126 No. 1, pp. 279-307.
Charbonnier‐Voirin, A. and Roussel, P. (2012), “Adaptive performance: a new scale to measure
individual performance in organizations”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue
Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 280-293.
Chen, I.J., Paetsch, K.A. and Paulraj, A. (1997), “Quality manager involvement and quality
performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 399-412.
Cheng, Y. and Kalleberg, A.L. (1996), “Employee job performance in Britain and the United States”,
Sociology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 115-129.
Colquitt, J., Lepine, J.A., Wesson, M.J. and Gellatly, I.R. (2011), Organizational Behavior: Improving
Performance and Commitment in the Workplace, McGraw-Hill Irwin, New York, NY.
Cummings, L.L. and Schwab, D.P. (1973), Performance in Organizations: Determinants & Appraisal,
Scott, Foresman, IL.
Department of Industrial Works (2015), “Statistics of automobile parts manufacturing plants”,
available at: www.thaiauto.or.th/2012/th/about-us/download/annual_report_2010.pdf (accessed
June 11, 2016).
Flap, H.D. and Völker, B. (2004), “Social networks and performance at work: a study of the returns of
social capital in doing a job”, in Flap, H.D. and Völker, B. (Eds), Creation and Returns of Social
Capital, Routledge, London, pp. 172-196.
 Frederiksen, A., Lange, F. and Kriechel, B. (2017), “Subjective performance evaluations and employee EJP scale
careers”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 134 No. 2, pp. 408-429.
Furnham, A. and Stringfield, P. (1998), “Congruence in job-performance ratings: a study of 360
feedback examining self, manager, peers, and consultant ratings”, Human Relations, Vol. 51
No. 4, pp. 517-530.
Fynes, B. and Voss, C. (2001), “A path analytic model of quality practices quality performance,
and business performance”, Production and operations management, Vol. 10 No. 4, 2447
pp. 494-513.
Gardner, W.L. and Schermerhorn, J.R. (2004), “Unleashing individual potential: performance gains
through positive organizational behavior and authentic leadership”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 270-281.
Gilmore, H.L. (1985), “Work performance quality”, Quality, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 16-20.
Groen, B.A.C., Wouters, M.J.F. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2017), “Employee participation, performance
metrics, and job performance: a survey study based on self-determination theory”, Management
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Accounting Research, Vol. 36, No. Supplement C, pp. 51-66.

Hedayati Mehdiabadi, A. and Li, J. (2016), “Understanding talent development and implications for
human resource development: an integrative literature review”, Human Resource Development
Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 263-294.
Jeong, K.-Y. and Phillips, D.T. (2001), “Operational efficiency and effectiveness measurement”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 1404-1416.
Kim, J.O. and Mueller, C.W. (1978), Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues, Sage, London.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C.M., Hildebrandt, V.H., de Vet, H.C. and van der Beek, A.J. (2014),
“Measuring individual work performance: identifying and selecting indicators”, Work, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 229-238.
Lakhal, L.A., Pasin, F. and Limam, M. (2006), “Quality management practices and their impact
on performance”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 625-646.
Lindeman, R.H., Merenda, P.F. and Gold, R.Z. (1980), Introduction to Bivariate and Multivariate
Analysis, Scott, Foresman, IL.
Liu, Y. and Xu, J. (2006), “QFD model for quality performance self-assessment”, Asian Journal on
Quality, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 112-127.
Masood Abdulla, B., Hassan, S., Khaled, A., Elizabeth, E.G., Hassan, Y. and Mohammed, A. (2006),
“The Baldrige education criteria for performance excellence framework: empirical test and
validation”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 1118-1157.
Miller, W.J., Sumner, A.T. and Deane, R.H. (2009), “Assessment of quality management practices within
the healthcare industry”, American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 105-113.
Na-Nan, K. (2016), “Performance management system of SMEs in Thailand”, International Journal of
Economic Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1641-1658.
Na-Nan, K. and Chalermthanakij, K. (2012), “A causal relationship model of factors affecting employee
engagement and performance”, RMUTT Global Business and Economics Review, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 145-168.
Na-Nan, K., Chaiprasit, K. and Pukkeeree, P. (2017), “Performance management in SME high-growth
sectors and high-impact sectors in Thailand”, International Journal of Engineering Business
Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O. and Sharma, S. (2003), Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications,
SAGE Publications, London.
Njagi, L.K. and Malel, J. (2012), “Time management and job performance in selected parastatals in
Kenya”, Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 19-29.
 IJQRM Orpen, C. (1995), “Employee job performance and relations with superior as moderators of the effect of
35,10 appraisal goal setting on employee work attitudes”, International Journal of Career
Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 3-6.
Peterson, E. and Plowman, G.E. (1953), Business Organization and Management, Irwin, IL.
Peterson, E., Plowman, G.E. and Trickett, J.M. (1962), Business Organization and Management,
Irwin, IL.
2448 Petsri, C. (2014), “The follower characteristics and organizational climate influencing operational
efficiency of employees: a case study of the information and communications technology
business group”, Suthiparitha, Vol. 28 No. 85, pp. 145-160.
Piriyakul, M. (2016), “Test of moderation effect in structural equation modeling”, The Journal of
Industrial Technology, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 78-91.
Pradhan, R.K. and Jena, L.K. (2017), “Employee performance at workplace: conceptual model and
empirical validation”, Business Perspectives and Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

Rose, K. (2016), “Examining organizational citizenship behavior in the context of human resource
development: an integrative review of the literature”, Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 295-316.
Schermerhorn, J.R., Hunt, J.G. and Osborn, R.N. (1995), Basic Organizational Behavior, J. Wiley,
Hobken, NJ.
Schriesheim, C.A., Powers, K.J., Scandura, T.A., Gardiner, C.C. and Lankau, M.J. (1993), “Improving
construct measurement in management research: comments and a quantitative approach for
assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 385-417.
Siddiqui, K.A. (2013), “Heuristics for sample size determination in multivariate statistical techniques”,
World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 285-287.
Stanislav, K. and Walter, W. (2002), “Self-audit of process performance”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 24-45.
Star, S., Russ-Eft, D., Braverman, M.T. and Levine, R. (2016), “Performance measurement and
performance indicators: a literature review and a proposed model for practical adoption”,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 151-181.
Steers, R.M. (1991), Introduction to Organizational Behavior, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY.
Swanson, R. (2007), Analysis for Improving Performance: Tools for Diagnosing Organizations and
Documenting Workplace Expertise, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, California.
Tran, B.X., Minh, H.V. and Hinh, N.D. (2013), “Factors associated with job satisfaction among
commune health workers: implications for human resource policies”, Global Health Action, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Waal, A.A.D. and Oudshoorn, M. (2015), “Two profiles of the Dutch high performing employee”,
European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 570-585.
Webb-Robertson, B.-J., Bunn, A.L. and Bailey, V.L. (2011), “Phospholipid fatty acid biomarkers in a
freshwater periphyton community exposed to uranium: discovery by non-linear statistical
learning”, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 64-71.
Webb‐Robertson, B.J.M., Matzke, M.M., Jacobs, J.M., Pounds, J.G. and Waters, K.M. (2011), “A statistical
selection strategy for normalization procedures in LC-MS proteomics experiments through
dataset-dependent ranking of normalization scaling factors”, Proteomics, Vol. 11 No. 24,
pp. 4736-4741.
Welbourne, T.M., Johnson, D.E. and Erez, A. (1998), “The role-based performance scale: validity analysis of
a theory-based measure”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 540-555.
Wiratchai, N. (2000), Knowledge Boundary of Research and Statistic, Graduate School of Public
Administration, Chon Buri.
 Yaghoubi, M., Javadi, M., Rakhsh, F. and Bahadori, M. (2013), “A study of determining factors affecting EJP scale
the performance of nurses based on the achieve model in selected hospital of Isfahan (Iran)”,
Journal of Education and Health Promotion, Vol. 2 No. 49, pp. 1-5.
Yusof, S.R.M. and Aspinwall, E. (1999), “Critical success factors for total quality management
implementation in small and medium enterprises”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4-5,
pp. 803-809.
Yusoff, R.B.M., Ali, A.M. and Khan, A. (2014), “Assessing reliability and validity of job performance scale
among university teachers”, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 35-41. 2449

Corresponding author
Khahan Na-Nan can be contacted at: [email protected]
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 19:33 26 January 2019 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]