The concept of knowledge and how to measure it
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930310455414 |
| Published date | 01 March 2003 |
| Date | 01 March 2003 |
| Pages | 100-113 |
| Author | Darwin P. Hunt |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,HR & organizational behaviour,Information & knowledge management |
The concept of knowledge and
how to measure it
Darwin P. Hunt
Human Performance Enhancement, Inc., Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
Keywords Knowledge, Training, Assessment
Abstract Knowledge is often defined as a belief that is true and justified. This definition has led to
its measurement by methods that rely solely on the correctness of answers. A correct or incorrect
answer is interpreted to mean simply that a person knows or does not know something. Such
methods of measurement have serious deficiencies that can be alleviated by expanding the
definition of knowledge to include the test-taker’s certainty. The person’s certainty about the
answers on a test captures important, but now neglected, dimensions of knowledge. Historical
roots of certainty as an essential component of knowledge, and some practical benefits of including
it, are discussed. An epistemetric method is described which allows people to indicate “How sure
are you?” about the correctness of each of their answers. A computer analysis of the person’s
answers and self-assessment certainty responses provides multidimensional scores about a
person’s knowledge that remedy some deficiencies of knowledge assessment and achievement tests
now employed.
Introduction
This paper is about two things:
(1) A definition of personal knowledge, with the aim of providing an
expanded concept which, in turn, will allow more productive discussions
of assessment, knowledge management, individual and organizational
performance and training.
(2) Describing an epistemetric method, i.e. a measurement of knowledge,
which is more closely related to the ways motivated people acquire,
retain and use knowledge to enumerate, select and execute goal-directed
actions at work, in the home and at play.
The paper is focused on tacit knowledge which O’Dell and Grayson (1998, p. 3)
indicate is, “... found in the heads of employees, the experience of customers,
the memories of past vendors”. Knowledge is a concept – like gravity. You
cannot see it, but can only observe its effects. Because knowledge is an
invisible, intangible asset and cannot be directly observed, many people and
organizations do not explicitly recognize the importance of knowledge, in
contrast to their more visible financial and capital assets (Sveiby, 1997). Sveiby
(1997) suggests that knowledge is invisible because it lacks “a generally
accepted definition and a measurement standard”.
Sveiby (1997, p. 37) defines knowledge as “a capacity to act”; this makes the
important distinction between the behavioral potential, which cannot be
directly observed, and the observable performance or behavior. Although there
are some who do not distinguish clearly between knowledge and behavior, the
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
JIC
4,1
100
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 4 No. 1, 2003
pp. 100-113
qMCB UP Limited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/14691930310455414
To continue reading
Request your trial