Accurately assessing adaptive performance is essential for understanding how individuals respond to change, yet existing measures rarely distinguish between qualitatively different forms of adaptation. This research introduces a new instrument designed to capture adaptive performance along two complementary orientations. The first is protective adaptation, which refers to behaviors aimed at maintaining desirable conditions (e.g., preserving performance standards or team cohesion). The second is promotive adaptation, which refers to behaviors aimed at improving or advancing a situation (e.g., implementing new practices or making better use of technologies).
Building on a Delphi study that identified dimensions of adaptive performance, we developed 96 items reflecting these two orientations. This paper reports the results from two studies examining their content validity and perceived relevance.
In Study 1, 21 Ph.D. students in I/O psychology classified the items along the two orientations (protective vs. promotive) and evaluated their clarity and conciseness. Applying established criteria for strong content validity (psa ≥ .82; csv ≥ .61; Colquitt et al., 2019), 10 items failed to meet the thresholds and another 10 were judged insufficiently clear or concise.
In Study 2, 45 managers from diverse backgrounds assessed how frequently the items occurred in their work environment and the extent to which each represented an indicator of performance in dynamic conditions. Results showed that 10 items were rated as infrequently displayed. Managers consistently viewed protective adaptation dimensions as highly relevant performance indicators, whereas some promotive dimensions (e.g., enhancing stress management in dynamic situations, shaping organizational changes) were perceived as less relevant.
Together, these findings support the conceptual distinction between protective and promotive adaptive performance and provide empirical guidance for refining the items. A reduced version of the questionnaire will be developed and validated with employee samples to offer a more nuanced and evidence-based assessment of adaptive performance in dynamic organizational contexts.