Study area The study was carried out in five upazilas (Sub-district) under Kishoregonj district in Bangladesh. Those upazilas, where SSNPs were getting popularity among the vulnerable rural poor, were selected as a study area.
Sampling procedure and sample size A total number of 70 field level workers and officers (Itna: 13 persons, Mithamain: 9 persons, Nikli: 11 persons, Tarail: 21 persons, and Karimgonj: 16 persons) were assigned at three nation building departments (Upazila Social Welfare Office, Upazila Engineering Office, and Upazila Project Implementation Office) engaged in implementing SSNPs. The designations of these field level workers are union worker, trade worker, technician, office assistant, and meson. Data were collected from those 70 field level workers and officers from the five upazilas. Total sampling method was used for selecting sample number of the study.
Data collection A structured interview schedule was used to collect data from the field level workers during 06 October to 06 November, 2013. Before collecting data, an interview schedule was submitted as a pre-test to verify potential shortcomings in comprehension and to validate its appropriateness. A pilot test of the interview survey was conducted with 15 field level workers in the study area. Based on the results, some revisions on the interview schedule were made.
Measurement of the variables So as to identify determinants to the job performance of field level workers, the study proposed causality: job performance as a result (dependent/explanatory variable) and socio-economic characteristics as causes (independent variables). For the latter, independent variables, were adopted 12 socio-economic characteristics of field level workers (age, level of education, household size, annual family income, organizational participation, social mobility, communication media contact, time allocation, relationship with senior officers, SNNPs training exposure in the past 5 years, knowledge on SSNPs, and awareness of SSNPs). For the job performance as a dependent variable, 20 job activities were adopted in practice and each of those job activities was appraised by 3 methods such as self-rating, supervisor-rating, and beneficiary-rating. The job performance on each activity was measured by a five-point rating scale such as excellent, good, fair, poor, and very poor performance. The corresponding scores were 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point, respectively. As to self-rating, it means that the field level worker himself/herself appraises the performance of each activity based on the scale of “excellent”, “good”, “fair”, “poor”, or “very poor”. Supervisor-rating means that the job performance of a field level worker is appraised by officers who supervise the field level worker at the relevant office. It is sure that the job performance of a field level worker is measured by 2 or 3 officers. Meanwhile, in beneficiary-rating, though a beneficiary was selected at random, the job performance of a field level worker on activity is appraised by the beneficiary only. The method was used by Isalm et al. (1987) and Hoque and Usami (2008) to measure the performance of extension workers.
Afterward, the score of job performance of a field level worker was calculated to be an average from such three ratings. Then, the overall job performance amount to the total scores from accumulating the 20 job performances. Hence, it could range from 20 (20 jobs x 1 point) to 100 (20 jobs x 5 points); 20 for the very poor performance and 100 for the excellent performance. In addition, from the viewpoint of the difficulty of job activity, Performance Index (PI) was calculated by the following formula: Performance Index (PI) = Total score received / Maximum total score x 100.