Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 3411 Download : 5934

Main Article Content

Abstract

Learning agility is the willingness and the ability of individuals to engage in active learning in order to adapt activity opportunities from experience, and apply that learning lesson to successfully perform in the new and changing situations and conditions especially for reaching the organizational agility. Learning agility consists of four dimensions: people agility, results agility, mental agility, and change agility. The use of instruments in different cultural backgrounds requires an adaptation process to ensure the  valid and reliable measurement results, but until now there has been no research on the adaptation of learning agility measurement instrument in Indonesia. The purpose of this study is to obtain and test the standardized Indonesian version of learning agility instrument. The adaptation process was carried out using the International Test Commission (2016) as a reference. Based on the results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using JASP 0.13.1.0, it can be concluded that according to the theory, the learning agility model consists of four dimensions: people agility, results agility, mental agility, and change agility. It has a good fit model after several adjustment items are removed. It explains that the resulted model can describe the actual conditions, but with some conditions that must be taken into account.

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Nurnaifah Selvia Wardhani, Marina Sulastiana, Rezki Ashriyana

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Author Biography

Nurnaifah Selvia Wardhani, Universitas Padjadjaran

Program Studi Magister Sains Psikologi, Departemen Psikologi Industri dan Organisasi, Fakultas Psikologi

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
  2. Azwar, S. (2015). Penyusunan skala psikologi. Pustaka Belajar.
  3. Bartram, D., Berberoglu, G., Grégoire, J., Hambleton, R., Muniz, J., & van de Vijver, F. (2018). ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests (Second Edition). International Journal of Testing, 18(2), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166
  4. Burke, W. (2018). Technical report: Burke learning agility inventory. EASI Consult, 3(9), 1–37.
  5. Charbonnier-voirin, A., & Roussel, P. (2012). Adaptive performance : A new scale to measure individual performance in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l Administration, 29(1), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.232
  6. De Meuse, K. P. (2017). Learning agility: Its evolution as a psychological construct and its empirical relationship to leader success. Consulting Psychology Journal, 69(4), 267–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000100
  7. Ferry, K. (2011). Learning agility self-assessment. The Art Science of Talent, 2(3), 1–3.
  8. Gravett, L. S., & Caldwell, S. A. (2016). Learning agility: The impact on recruitment and retention. In Learning agility: The impact on recruitment and retention. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59965-0
  9. Joiner, B. (2007). Leadership agility: Five levels of mastery for anticipating and initiating change. In Jossey-Bass (Issue March). Jossey-Bass.
  10. Joiner, B. (2019). Leadership agility for organizational agility. Journal of Creating Value, 5(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394964319868321
  11. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. In Wadsworth/Cengage Learning (Sixth Edit).
  12. Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. (2000). High potentials as high learners. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-050X(200024)39:4<321::AID-HRM4>3.0.CO;2-1
  13. Meuse, K. P. De, & Group, W. M. (2015). Using science to identify future leaders: Part III - The TALENTx7 Assessment TM of learning agility. Technical Report, 5(3), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4905.7769
  14. Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., & Hallenbeck, G. (2008). Using learning agility to identify high potentials around the world. Global Talent Management, 2(5), 1–22.
  15. Miles, A. (2013). Agile learning: Living with the speed of change. Development and Learning in Organisations, 27(2), 20–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777281311302058
  16. Mrugalska, B. (2021). Organizational agility in industry 4.0: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 13(8272), 1–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158272
  17. Park, S., & Park, S. (2019). Employee adaptive performance and its antecedents: Review and synthesis. Human Resource Development Review, 18(3), 294–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484319836315
  18. Popham, W. J. (1978). The 1978 annual meeting presidential debate: The case for criterion-referenced measurements. Educational Researcher, 7(11), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X007011006
  19. Smith, B. C. (2015). How does learning agile business leadership differ? Exploring a revised model of the construct of learning agility in relation to executive performance. In Columbia University. Columbia University.
  20. Swisher, V. (2013). Learning agility: The “X” factor in identifying and developing future leaders. Industrial and Commercial Training, 45(3), 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197851311320540
  21. Wageeh, N. A. (2016). Organizational agility: The key to organizational success. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(5), 296. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v11n5p296
  22. Wang, S., & Beier, M. E. (2012). Learning agility: Not much is new. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(3), 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2012.01448.x
  23. Yadav, N., & Dixit, S. (2017). A conceptual model of learning agility and authentic leadership development: Moderating effects of learning goal orientation and organizational culture. Journal of Human Values, 23(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971685816673487
  24. Zainal, A. Y., Yousuf, H., & Salloum, S. A. (2020). Dimensions of agility capabilities organizational competitiveness in sustaining. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1153 AISC, 762–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44289-7_71