“Conversational Reflexivity Scale 会话自反性量表”的版本间的差异

来自OBHRM百科
跳转至： 导航、 搜索
 
（未显示2个用户的3个中间版本）
第1行： 第1行：
 
==简介==
 
==简介==
−
The framework for learning in huddles is grounded in an experiential learning framework. Based on the assumptions of experiential learning theories, Quinn et al. (2016) focus on variables that seem particularly relevant to resolving the unique challenges of learning in huddles, and conversational reflexivity is one of preconditions for learning in experiential learning theory. Quinn et al. (2016) define “conversational reflexivity,” within the context of huddles, as the extent to which huddle participants actively consider and explore the different perceptual frames that each participant brings to the huddle.
+
Quinn et al. (2016) 以群体的环境，定义了会话自反性，即群体参与者积极思考并探索每个参与者带给群体的不同知觉框架的程度。
−
 
 
−
Quinn et al. (2016) measured conversational reflexivity using three items that were developed for this study as part of a broader scale focused on inquiry and advocacy behaviors.
 
−
 
 
−
Quinn et al. (2016) tested their hypotheses using data obtained from participants in huddles that took place in newspaper newsrooms. Ultimately, we received at least one completed survey from 106 newsrooms (52% of those who agreed to participate and 21% of eligible newsrooms). This response rate (21%) is similar to the participation rates in individual experience sampling studies (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989). After dropping surveys from newspapers that sent only one completed survey, we had 178 surveys from 73 newspapers (14% of total newsrooms).
 
  
 
==信度与效度==
 
==信度与效度==
−
An exploratory factor analysis of that scale—using the 40 observations Quinn et al. (2016) deleted from final sample because only 1 person had responded from each newsroom—suggested that these three items measured a distinct construct.
+
对会话自反性量表的探索性因素分析表明，这三道题测量了完全不同的概念。另外，最终的数据内部一致性系数为0.78.
−
They conducted a second validation study to verify that these three items are getting at team learning and reflection as they have been measured in published scales.
 
−
 
 
−
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale in the exploratory dataset was 0.73 and in the final dataset was 0.78.
 
  
 
==量表==
 
==量表==
 
请您根据自己的实际感受和体会，用下面3项描述对您所处的组织进行评价和判断，并在最符合的数字上划○。评价和判断的标准如下：
 
请您根据自己的实际感受和体会，用下面3项描述对您所处的组织进行评价和判断，并在最符合的数字上划○。评价和判断的标准如下：
−
Quinn et al. (2016) measured the tendency to conversational reflexivity using 9-point Likert scales ranging from 1 = “disagree completely” to 9 = “agree completely.”
+
Quinn et al. (2016) 测量了会话自反性的倾向，运用的是利科克九分量表，1=“非常不同意”到9=“非常同意”。
−
 
 
 
<br>1.We used multiple points of view in our discussion to help us understand the issues
 
<br>1.We used multiple points of view in our discussion to help us understand the issues
 
<br>2.We used alternative view- points as a way to gain new insights
 
<br>2.We used alternative view- points as a way to gain new insights
 
<br>3.each person defended his or her respective viewpoints
 
<br>3.each person defended his or her respective viewpoints
 +
  
 
下载WORD版问卷：[[文件:Crs.doc]]
 
下载WORD版问卷：[[文件:Crs.doc]]
第29行： 第22行：
 
==量表出处==
 
==量表出处==
 
Quinn, R. W. (2013). Could we huddle on this project? participant learning in newsroom conversations. Journal of Management, 42(2)，Feb 2016, 386-418.
 
Quinn, R. W. (2013). Could we huddle on this project? participant learning in newsroom conversations. Journal of Management, 42(2)，Feb 2016, 386-418.
 +
 +
== 友情提醒 ==
 +
为方便学术研究，根据公开发表的学术成果整理而成，供学者在学术研究中使用， <b><font color="red">商业使用请与原作者联系</font></b>。为了尊重作者的劳动成果， <b><font color="blue">请根据量表出处规范引用</font></b>，谢谢！
  
 
[[category: 研究量表]][[category: 英文量表]]
 
[[category: 研究量表]][[category: 英文量表]]

2016年12月24日 (六) 12:31的最新版本

简介

Quinn et al. (2016) 以群体的环境，定义了会话自反性，即群体参与者积极思考并探索每个参与者带给群体的不同知觉框架的程度。

信度与效度

对会话自反性量表的探索性因素分析表明，这三道题测量了完全不同的概念。另外，最终的数据内部一致性系数为0.78.

量表

请您根据自己的实际感受和体会，用下面3项描述对您所处的组织进行评价和判断，并在最符合的数字上划○。评价和判断的标准如下： Quinn et al. (2016) 测量了会话自反性的倾向，运用的是利科克九分量表，1=“非常不同意”到9=“非常同意”。
1.We used multiple points of view in our discussion to help us understand the issues
2.We used alternative view- points as a way to gain new insights
3.each person defended his or her respective viewpoints


下载WORD版问卷：文件:Crs.doc

计分方法

The items from the scale break out into three distinct sub-processes of learning and reflection: reviewing past successes and failures (two items), challenging one another’s opinions (two items), and exploring different perspectives and viewpoints (three items).

会话自反性量表总共3个题目，可计算平均分或总分。

量表出处

Quinn, R. W. (2013). Could we huddle on this project? participant learning in newsroom conversations. Journal of Management, 42(2)，Feb 2016, 386-418.

友情提醒

为方便学术研究，根据公开发表的学术成果整理而成，供学者在学术研究中使用， 商业使用请与原作者联系。为了尊重作者的劳动成果， 请根据量表出处规范引用，谢谢！

取自“http://www.obhrm.net/index.php?title=Conversational_Reflexivity_Scale_会话自反性量表&oldid=1647”