Construction and Validation of a Social Worker Work Performance Index In China

Background and Purpose: Work performance is central to individual accountability and organizational effectiveness, yet no validated measure exists for social workers in China — or globally. China's social work profession has expanded rapidly, with over 53,000 social workers serving in more than 21,000 township stations by mid-2022, making workforce accountability increasingly urgent. Existing instruments from management and organizational psychology do not account for social work's distinctive value base, diverse client populations, or ethical demands. This study aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a Social Worker Work Performance Index (SW-WPI) using a nationally representative dataset of Chinese social workers.

Methods: Data were drawn from the 2019 baseline of the China Social Work Longitudinal Study (CSWLS), a multilevel national longitudinal study of China's social work sector. The study proceeded in three phases. In Phase 1, Koopmans et al.'s (2011) heuristic conceptual framework of individual work performance was adapted to the social work context, yielding a four-dimensional model (task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance, and ethics and values) and an initial pool of 79 items. In Phase 2, semi-structured cognitive interviews with 20 purposively sampled social workers refined item wording and confirmed the substitution of "counterproductive performance" with "ethics and values" as more appropriate to the profession, retaining 66 items. In Phase 3, 4,633 social workers (employed ≥12 months; age ≥16) were randomly divided into three subsamples. Subsample 1 (n = 1,544) supported Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) via principal components analysis with promax rotation. Subsample 2 (n = 1,544) was used for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation. Subsample 3 (n = 1,545) tested criterion validity through Pearson correlations with four external variables: crisis intervention ability, interpersonal stress, job satisfaction, and Collective Psychological Ownership (CPO).

Results: EFA identified a four-factor, 20-item structure explaining 69.29% of total variance, with factor loadings ranging from 0.72 to 0.90. Internal consistency was strong across all subscales (Cronbach's α = 0.81–0.93), and item-total correlations exceeded 0.72. CFA confirmed acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.959, SRMR = 0.028, RMSEA = 0.051). Criterion validity analyses showed work performance was positively associated with crisis intervention ability (r = 0.35), job satisfaction (r = 0.46), and CPO (r = 0.34), and negatively associated with interpersonal stress (r = −0.47; all p < 0.01), consistent with theoretical expectations.

Conclusions and Implications: The SW-WPI is the first validated, profession-specific measure of social worker work performance, demonstrating sound psychometric properties. For researchers, it enables multi-level investigation of individual performance and organizational outcomes. For practitioners and policymakers, it offers a standardized tool for evidence-based supervision, workforce development, and accountability. Future research should examine its validity across different cultural contexts.