期刊文献+

海军营级单位政治主官胜任力特征问卷的编制

Structure of questionnaires describing characteristics of competence of the Naval commissar at the battalion level
下载PDF
导出
摘要 为了给海军营级单位政治主官胜任力特征的评估提供测量工具,结合政策法规研究、调查问卷法和访谈法编制预测问卷,并选取海军各直属单位的基层政治教导员为被试进行正式测验。结果发现,KMO值为0.934,Bartlett′s球形检验中显著性水平P<0.05,即问卷数据非常适合进行因子分析。探索性因素分析显示,问卷结构包含六个维度,解释率为69.388。六个维度之间的相关系数大小均小于六个维度与问卷整体相关系数的大小,证明问卷结构效度良好。结果表明:海军营级单位政治主官胜任力特征问卷由六个维度组成,分别是管理能力维度、技能维度、知识维度、政治素养维度、思维维度和个性品质。问卷信效度良好,可以作为海军营级单位政治主官胜任力特征评估的测量工具。 This paper aims to develop and validate a scale of characteristics of the competence for the the Naval commissar at the battalion level.The initial questionnaire is developed on the basis of research on policies and regulations,open questionnaires and interviews.A total of 583 grass-roots political instructors are selected to carry out the survey,of which 544 responses are valid,the efficiency being 93%.The result shows that the KMO test score is 0.934,the data being well suited for factor analysis.The result of the EFA and the structure of characteristics of the competence for the the Naval commissar at the battalion level is composed of six factors.The results of CFA showed that the 6-factor model fits the data well.Thus the questionnaires prove that the the Naval commissar at the battalion level competence characteristics is composed of six factors namely,knowledge,skill,thinking,management ability,personality quality and political literacy.The reliability and validity of the questionnaire can be used in both research and practice.
作者 周永垒 白旭 于泽 ZHOU Yong-lei;BAI Xu;YU Ze(Training Department of Political Officers,Dalian Naval Academy,Dalian 116001,China)
出处 《海军工程大学学报(综合版)》 2020年第4期9-12,共4页 Journal of Naval University of Engineering(Comprehensive Edition)
关键词 心理学 海军营级单位政治主官 胜任力特征 问卷编制 psychology the Naval commissar at the battalion level characteristics of the competence development of questionnaire
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献15

  • 1苗丹民 王涛.军事心理学研究[M].西安:第四军医大学出版社,2003.152-6.
  • 2Gael S. The job analysis handbook for business, industry and government[M].New York: Wiley,1988: 125-144.
  • 3Cranny CJ, Doherty ME. Importance ratings in job analysis: Note on the misinterpretation of factor analysis[J]. J Appl Psychol, 1988;73: 320-322.
  • 4Hough LM,Oswald FL. Personnel Selection: Looking toward the future: Remembering the past[J]. Annu Rev Psychol, 2000;51: 631-664.
  • 5Peterson NG, Mumford MD, Borman WC, et al. An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O·NET[M]. Washington DC: America Psychology Association, 1999: 319-321.
  • 6McHenry JJ, Hough LM, Toquam JL, et al. Project A validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains[J]. Pers Psychol, 1990; 43(2): 335-354.
  • 7Campbell JP. An overview of the army selection and classification project (Project A)[J]. Pers Psychol, 1990; 43(2): 232-239.
  • 8Shields JL,Hanser LM. Designing, planning, and selling project A[J]. Pers Psychol, 1990; 43(2): 246-257.
  • 9Spencer JM, Spencer SM. Competence at work: Models for superior performance[M]. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1993: 25-28.
  • 10Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. The validity and utility of selection methods in personal psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings[J]. Psychol Bull, 1998;124: 262-274.

共引文献9

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部