IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijppmp/v58y2009i7p632-644.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An instrument for the self‐appraisal of scientific research performance

Author

Listed:
  • James C. Ryan
  • Syed Awais Tipu

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present findings related to an instrument for the self‐appraisal of scientists' research performance, and highlight the suitability of self‐appraisal instruments for members of the scientific community. Design/methodology/approach - An examination of the literature on self‐appraisal and the measurement of scientific research is presented. The initial development of the instrument employed qualitative methods through interview and discussions with PhD‐qualified scientific researchers (n=13). A quantitative investigation of the usefulness of the instrument was then conducted on a sample of biological and chemical research scientists (n=270). Results were compared with an existing performance measure and examined for representative reliability. Findings - Results suggest that the instrument may be a reliable measure of research performance when used in a non‐critical context. Research limitations/implications - While the instrument shows promise, further research is needed to examine aspects of inter‐rater reliability. Additional research is also needed to further examine relationships between it and other measures of research performance at the same level of analysis. While the usefulness and validity of this instrument at the “international level” has been examined, further research is needed to examine the relative validity and reliability of the instrument at the “institutional” and “national” levels. Practical implications - The instrument provides a useful and cost‐effective tool for use in the performance appraisal process of research scientists, and for use in focusing discussion on performance for developmental purposes. It is also useful as a research tool for the timely and cost‐effective measurement of research performance at an institutional, national and international level. Originality/value - The paper presents an original paper and pencil instrument for the appraisal of scientific research performance at an institutional, national, and international level.

Suggested Citation

  • James C. Ryan & Syed Awais Tipu, 2009. "An instrument for the self‐appraisal of scientific research performance," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 58(7), pages 632-644, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijppmp:v:58:y:2009:i:7:p:632-644
    DOI: 10.1108/17410400910989458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17410400910989458/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17410400910989458/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/17410400910989458?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. James C. Ryan, 2016. "A validation of the individual annual h-index (hIa): application of the hIa to a qualitatively and quantitatively different sample," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 577-590, October.
    2. Ryan, James Christopher & Berbegal-Mirabent, Jasmina, 2016. "Motivational recipes and research performance: A fuzzy set analysis of the motivational profile of high performing research scientists," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5299-5304.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:ijppmp:v:58:y:2009:i:7:p:632-644. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.