This study intends to examine what workplace metacompetencis are and to develop its assessment tool. The study was conducted generally in the order of establishing an assessment tool development plan, developing preliminary survey items, preliminary survey, and main investigation. First, in the stage of establishing an assessment tool development plan, a conceptual framework was derived by organizing integrative literature reviews and the related theories on the concept of workplace metacompetencies along with its components. In the stage of developing preliminary survey items, in-depth interviews were conducted with 5 R&D personnel in the field of science and technology to derive the behavioral characteristics related to workplace metacompetencies. In the stage of preliminary survey, a preliminary survey was conducted to develop an assessment tool for the main survey on the measurement items of workplace metacompetencies for which the validity of content was verified. An analysis was conducted of 188 R&D personnel in the field of science and technology, and the validity and reliability of the items were verified through item analysis and exploratory factor analysis to confirm 35 items of 7 factors finally. In the stage of the main survey, a valid sample of 454 R&D personnel was secured and item analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis were carried out to secure the validity and reliability of items, and to verify the suitability of the model. Based on this analysis, 32 items of 7 factors of workplace metacompetencies - alternative recognition, recognition of situational handling, emotional control and, positive emotion, will to grow, will to change, and seeking for reflection - were finally confirmed. This study is meaningful in that it explored the concept of workplace metacompetencies in an academic view and worked out a conceptual framework through theoretical grounds and connections.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Son et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: