Part I: Construct Development And Scale Creation 1. C 845296

Part I: Construct Development and Scale Creation 1. Create an operationa

Part I: Construct Development and Scale Creation 1. Create an operational definition of your construct using at least three peer-reviewed journal articles as references. 2. Construct and Measure function in the workplace/Working Memory (example task: attendance or pay, or position) 3 . Use the five items below to sample the domain.

Work Performance, Skills/Experience, Male/Female, Age, and Educational Background 4. Use as your method of scaling; Working Memory/ Construct and Measure function in the workplace (example task: attendance or pay, or position) 5. Justify why you selected the scaling method you did. 6. Format the items into an instrument with which you would query respondents.

7. Justify whether this is an interview or self-report instrument. USE APA format and PEER PERVIEW articles and REFERENCES NOTES ATTACHED FOR ASSIGNMENT. 1. Choose a construct you would like to measure.

We will construct and measure the functionality of working memory (WM) at the workplace, with the example of the performance of a computing payroll task. 2. Create an operational definition of your construct using at least three peer reviewed journal articles as sources as references as given. Given an individual’s Working memory (WM) capacities vary, not only among the individual, it also varies among different jobs, situation, or environment settings (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991). For the functionality of working memory, this measurements should relate to (WM) at the workplace (Field of transfer).

For performance such as payroll tasks, normally thease tasks will require "transfer of data" from one medium (list) to another (computer) (Carruthers & Espeland, 1991). WM is typically describes as the amount of information recalled 30 seconds after the learning stage (Baddeley, 2003). Therefore, the operational definition in this area should center on the relative quantity of pairs of monetary figures; thus, employees pay hours and the total hours worked. Construct Development, Scale Creation, and Process Analysis Working memory is a relatively short-term process that is responsible for a great deal of things. Working memory is how individuals learn new skills such as math or even reading.

Working memory assists in storing new information received into the person’s brain, it can help in using already stored information, it is responsible for reasoning, comprehension, and even memory updating. This paper will provide an analysis and justification on this construct being measured in the workplace through providing an operational definition of the construct. The paper will describe how to norm the instrument, the reliability measures that would be used, how many people it would be given too, the characteristics of the respondents desired, and who the instrument would be generalized to. The paper would cover how to establish validity, describe methods used for item selection, discuss the use of cut-off scores, and explain how item selection would be evaluated.

Operational Definition Operational meaning of the construct is that individual's working memory has breaking points which contrast among people and between different settings or tasks and measurements of these should be related the person’s field of trade or transfer, for this case it would be the execution office tasks dealing with data (Salthouse & Babcock, 1991). Thus, the operational definition should place focus on relative measures of sets in the data such as bookkeeping though the use of name and account sum, remembered out of 15 sets. Five things used to test the space will include gender, age, work experience, education, and a person’s lateral orientation, whether the individual is left or right-handed (Carruthers & Espeland, 1991).

Development of Instrument Good working memory will be defined as being able to actively keeping around seven times, plus or minus two, in memory for a couple of seconds (Smith, 1991). In this case the item will be worthless unless an individual can keep the pair set, being able to recall the name and account sum together. The scale used will have six ranks with the seven pair sets being the lowest score possible for the upper median which will be equal to six. The plus or minus of two set items will represent the standard deviation and the scale will be as follows. Stage one will be zero to one item representing the 3rd standard deviation and represent exceptional impairment of working memory.

Stage two is recall of three items representing second standard deviation and will equal abnormal impairment. Stage three is five items representing the first negative standard deviation and mild impairment. The fourth stage is seven items, first positive standard deviation, and good performance. The fifth stage is nine items, second standard deviation, and excellent performance. The final stage is more than nine items, third standard deviation, and exceptionally good performance.

With this break down of scoring and measuring cut-off scores will not be needed as the information is broken down to view an individual’s recall of the item sets given to them. The instrument developed is an objective measurement with the participants receiving a list of item sets or transactions that have a name and account sum. The account sums are either positive or negative listed as cash or payables with the amount. The names of the accounts will be listed with only one word, the person’s last name, and the sum together not exceeding 99 as the sum. The participants will look over the list for two minutes, receive a pause of 30 seconds, and then will set to recall as many of the item sets as the participant can in a four minute timeframe.

The stages lists above will be the measurement used in order to generalize the instrument to workplace settings. EXAMPLE NUMBER 2 Construct Development, Scale Creation, and Process Analysis Paper Part I: Construct Development and Scale Creation Construct to Measure The construct that team C would like to measure for this paper is test anxiety. Operational Definition of Construct Kurt, Balci, and Kose, (2014) defined test anxiety as “A special kind of anxiety-worry mixed with fear which arises especially in situations where the individual is being evaluated in an academic context, (p. 1235)â€. This kind of anxiety as stated by Kurt et al (2014) “may prevent effective use and communication of the information learned for the exam, resulting in failure, (p. 1235)â€. However, Zhang and Henderson (2014) using Spielberger and Sarason’s definition states “Spielberger and Sarason define test anxiety as a situation-specific trait that refers to anxiety states experienced during examinations, (p. 2)â€. Furthermore Kandemir (2013) in his article A Model explaining test anxiety: perfectionist personality traits and performance achievement goals, defines test anxiety as “The feeling which is experienced during a formal exam or evaluation, causes stress and has cognitive, affective and behavioral features that prevent the individual from presenting his/her real performance, (p. 272)â€.

According to Cohen, Yaakobi, Porat, & Chayoh (1989), test anxiety is an emotional state that is described as a psychological and physiological phenomenon. It also has an impact on self-esteem. Hence one can agree that test anxiety is an performance anxiety causing distress to individuals taking a test. Individuals may feel pressured to perform up to a certain standard and can result in failure or poor performance. Items Used to Sample the Domain.

Five items used to sample the domain will include: a) Negative self-focused thoughts b) Worry - cognitive concern about test performance c) Emotionality - physiological reactions d) Tension e) Test- irrelevant Thinking Method of Scaling Appropriate for Domain The method of paired comparison will be appropriate for the domains in this construct. The participants will be given stimuli in pairs to compare based on the rules of the given in regards to the construct. Justification for the Scaling Method This would not be an interview but a self-report instrument instead, using the Spielberger test anxiety inventory (TAI) which is a self-report psychometric scale. As stated by Spielberger (1980) this would be used to “measure individual differences in test anxiety as a situation-specific trait.

Based on a Likert Scale, the respondents are asked to report how frequently they experience specific symptoms of anxiety before, during and after examinations, (p. 1)â€. “In addition to measuring individual differences in anxiety proneness in test situations, the TAI subscales assess worry and emotionality as major components of test anxiety, (Spielberger, 1980; p. 1)â€. Justification of Instrument Thus this study uses the self-report method to measure the negative self-focused thoughts, worry and cognitive concern about test performance, emotionality physiological reactions, gender and age.

The instrument used is the scale of objective measurement. Items Formatted into Instrument to Query Respondents 1) Negative self-focused thoughts a) Physiological b) Self proclaimed prophecy 2) Worry - cognitive concern about test performance a) Feelings of dread b) Feelings of apprehension 3) Emotionality - physiological reactions a) Schachter-Singer Theory b) The fight or flight response 4) Tension a) Somatic symptoms b) Over-arousal 5) Test- Irrelevant Thinking a) Fear of failure b) Catastrophizing Interview or Self-Report Justification This study uses the self-report method to measure the negative self-focused thoughts, worry and cognitive concern about test performance, emotionality physiological reactions, gender and age.

The instrument used is the scale of objective measurement References Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Review Neuroscience. 4 (10), pp. . Retrieved from Carruthers, B.

G. & Espeland, W. N. (1991). Accounting for rationality: Double-entry bookkeeping and the rhetoric of economic rationality. The American Journal of Sociology, 97 (1), pp. 31-69. Retrieved from Lund Research Ltd. (2012). Construct Validity. Retrieved from: McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use. Memory & Cognition, 29, 10–17. “Psychology World.†(2015). Left-handedness: Does it mean anything? Retrieved from Salthouse, T. A. & Babcock, R. L. (1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27 (5), pp. . Retrieved from mory+construct&hl=en Smith, E. E. (1991). Working memory. In Wilson, R. A. & Keil, F. C., the MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. . Trochim, William M.K. (2006). Idea of Construct Validity. Retrieved from:

Paper For Above instruction

Construct development and measurement of cognitive functions, especially working memory (WM), in workplace settings have garnered significant scholarly attention due to their implications for productivity and performance outcomes. This paper aims to define, operationalize, and construct a scale to assess working memory's functionality among employees engaged in data-intensive tasks such as payroll processing. By integrating insights from peer-reviewed research and justified measurement approaches, the paper elucidates the process of designing an effective assessment instrument suitable for workplace application.

Operational Definition of Working Memory in the Workplace

The construct selected for measurement is working memory (WM), particularly as it pertains to workplace tasks involving data transfer, updating, and recall. According to Baddeley (2003), WM refers to a limited capacity system responsible for temporarily storing and manipulating information necessary for complex cognitive tasks. In occupational contexts, WM is critical for activities like payroll data management, where employees must recall and transfer numerical and transactional information efficiently. Salthouse and Babcock (1991) emphasize that WM capacity varies among individuals and is affected by environmental factors such as job complexity. Therefore, in this context, WM operationally is defined as an individual’s ability to accurately recall and manipulate pairs of data (e.g., name and account sum) after a brief interval, reflecting real-time data management demands in workplace scenarios.

Construction of the Measurement Instrument

The instrument will entail a list of paired data entries, including names and numerical figures, which participants will view for a fixed duration (two minutes). Following this, participants will have a 30-second interval to reinforce retention before attempting recall within four minutes. The core premise is that the number of correctly remembered data pairs correlates with an individual's working memory capacity under typical job conditions. Drawing on Miller’s (1956) theory of memory span, a scale will classify performance levels based on the number of correctly recalled pairs: exceptionally impaired (9 pairs).

The scoring system involves standard deviations around the mean performance, where recall of more than nine pairs signifies superior functioning. This model aligns with the research of Smith (1991), who highlights that active memory capacity varies, and performance assessments should be standardized for accurate comparison across individuals and occupational settings.

Justification of Measurement Method

This assessment employs a performance-based, objective measurement method, rooted in direct recall tests. Unlike self-report scales, which are susceptible to biases, this approach offers concrete data on cognitive capacity. The task simulates real work challenges such as data transfer or account reconciliation, emphasizing functional relevance. Furthermore, the performance measure is rooted in the cognitive neuroscience literature that correlates recall ability with WM capacity, providing empirical validity (Cowan, 2005). It also allows for norm-based comparisons across valid, representative samples.

The choice of performance testing aligns with the work of Carruthers and Espeland (1991), who note that data transfer and financial reconciliation tasks in employment settings demand precise short-term memory operations. This method prioritizes validity, reliability, and workplace applicability, enabling organizations to objectively identify employees with varying working memory capacity that influences job performance.

Design of the Instrument Items

Participants will be presented with a list of 15 data pairs consisting of a last name and a numerical figure (e.g., "Smith 45"). After viewing the list for two minutes, they will have a 30-second pause during which no information is accessible. Subsequently, they will have four minutes to recall and write down as many pairs as possible. The recalled pairs will be scored for accuracy and completeness, with the number of correct pairs falling into performance categories outlined earlier.

The data pairs are designed to be simple yet representative of workplace tasks, with names kept to a single word and account sums not exceeding 99. This structure ensures ease of recall and consistency across respondents, facilitating valid performance measurement.

Target Population and Reliability Considerations

The instrument is intended for adult employees involved in data management roles. A diversified sample across industries will enhance the generalizability of norms. Reliability will be ensured through test-retest procedures, where the same participants complete the task twice within a 2-week interval, and internal consistency analysis using split-half reliability.

Validity and Item Evaluation

Construct validity will be evaluated through correlation with other established WM measures and workplace performance indicators. Content validity is supported by the task’s alignment with occupational data transfer functions. Item difficulty and discrimination will be analyzed via pilot testing, ensuring the instrument’s sensitivity and specificity in measuring WM capacity accurately.

Conclusion

In sum, the designed measurement instrument provides an objective, performance-based assessment rooted in robust cognitive science literature. It effectively captures an employee’s working memory capacity within a realistic work context, thereby offering valuable insights into cognitive determinants of workplace performance. Future research could refine this approach further by integrating computerized adaptive testing and expanding across different job types and complexity levels.

References

• Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839.
• Carruthers, B. G., & Espeland, W. N. (1991). Accounting for rationality: Double-entry bookkeeping and the rhetoric of economic rationality. The American Journal of Sociology, 97(1), 31–69.
• Cowan, N. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.
• Smith, E. E. (1991). Working memory. In R. A. Wilson & F. C. Keil (Eds.), The MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences (pp. 725–727). MIT Press.
• Salthouse, T. A., & Babcock, R. L. (1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27(5), 763–775.
• Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Construct validity. In Research methods knowledge base. Retrieved from https://socialresearchmethods.net/kb/construct-validity/
• Field, J. (2009). Working memory assessment in the workplace: Advancements and applications. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 22(3), 145–159.
• McNamara, D. S., & Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 10–17.