2015 届本科生毕业论文（设计）英文资料翻译题 目： 医生使用医疗APP动机分析学生： 王涛学生学号： 1001040135指导教师： 蓉二级院系： 信息与计算机学院专业班级： 电子商务111班完成时间： 2015年10月10日文 献 来 源 ： ChristopherJ. CollinsSchool of Industrial and Labor RelationsCornellUniversityPaul J.HangesDepartment of Psychology University of Maryland Edwin A. Lode Robert H .Smith School of Rosiness University of Maryland. HUMAN PERFORMANCE. 17(1).95-117成就动机与创业行为的关系研究：元分析创业是一个主要因素在国民经济；因此，重要的是要理解动机特征激励人成 为企业家为何比其他人更成功在本研究中，我们进行一项成就动机与企业家行 为变量的关系的元分析我们发现，动机特征和两个密切对应的创业生涯和企业 家性能的选择进一步，我们发现两个射影和自我报告的成就动机是有效的措施。
最后，已知小组研究提出高效度系数比较个体差异的研究几乎所有的资本主义体系的支持者都会同意，鼓励创新和创业的成功有利于 持续健康和长期增长的一个国家的经济(Schumpeter，1961)进一步，小企业说 明超过50%的私营部门的就业和美国国生产总值(小型企业管理局办公室的宣传，2003)因为在经济中创业是一 个主导因素，研究学者调查了许多因素可能可以解释创业活动尽管大量的最近 研究趋向于关注业务的特点和行业环境或创业机会本身特点(Kaufmann&Dant， 1998)，我们理解企业家将不会完成，除非我们了解他们的动机 individualsinvolved(Venkataraman，1997)事实上，最近的研究表明，动机 特征是一个重要的因素在创业活动和成功 (Baum，Locke.& Smith，2000; Stewart & Roth ， 2001)研究企业家动机特征似乎特别有前景去帮助鉴定那些可能是最适合创业机 会识别并利用市场的个体(Shane&Venkataraman，2000)例如，个人特征和动机 可能是使用由学校、职业顾问、投资者、政府机构等来识别可能适合承担和成功 的创业企业个体。
尽管潜在的个人特征的重要性，还有很多未解的问题关于这个 动机和个人特征进行创业活动的角色，(Shane& Venkataraman，2000)因此， 在本文中，我们试图更好地了解一个重要的激励因素，成就需要，是同时与创业 的选择作为一个职业性能在创业的角色成就需要(nAch)的概念制定于1950年代(McClelland，Clark. Roby，& Atkinson 1958)麦克理兰和他的同事认为，成就需求高的人更有程度上比成就 需求低的人去从事充满活力和创新需要计划未来和个人的责任任务的结果的活 动*McClelland(1961)认为，成就需求高的人也应该更喜欢的任务，包括技能 和努力，提供清晰的绩效反馈，适度的挑战和风险，他还认为，企业家的职位有 更多的这些特征比其他类型的职位Holland's (1985)职业选择模型表明，个人 将大部分被提供的环境特点和符合他们的个性的职业生涯所吸引 Holland's(1985)也认为，当有一个合适工作环境性格和个性的地点则绩效和职 业满意度更高因此，正如McClelland (1961)提出，似乎成就需求高的个人应 该被吸引和表现良好的创业工作。
虽然有相当大的文献在成就动机和企业家精神领域，有重要的问题还没有得 到解决例如，Johnson(1990)进行了一次传统的文学评论，认为有证据表明成 就动机和创业行为之间的关系首先，由于叙事的本质，本文的成就动机和创业 活动大小关系尚不清楚事实上，许多研究显示了 Johnson的成就动机和创业活动之间的关系的无意义Johnson的报告也表明，在研究结果中有相当大的 方差，暗示也许有成就动机和创业活动的关系的调节器与传统的形成对比，元 分析有可能通过定量结合个别研究估计的大小关系的结果解决这些问题， (Hunter & Schmidt，1990)，并且通过允许正式测试潜在的调节这些关系这项研究有三个目标首先，我们评估程度支持McClelland的说法进行了 一次元分析回顾成就动机和创业研究的水平的分析问题第二，我们确定和测试 几个潜在的主持人之间成就动机和创业行动关系第三，我们比较有效性的成就 动机措施作为函数的测量方法(如，投影测量与自我报告问卷措施)我们讨论我 们的发现影响未来的研究和对组织和机构感权益的创业精神背景和假设许多早期的工作成就动机进行宏观的分析° McClelland (1961)假设一个更 高的成就需求平均水平的国家将会显示更多的去创业活动和经济增长比国家成 就需求平均水平较低的国家。
他发现了一个统计上的显著关系一个国家的成就需 求平均水平(通过测量儿童故事)和随后的经济增长的国家他还根据早些社会的 历史记录发现了去证明创业活动之间的关系然而，McClelland的说法并非没 有异议(如 Finison,1976;Frey,1984:Mazur&Rosa,1977)Both Finison(1976) 和(1977)Mazur and Rosa (1977)未能复制麦克勒兰德的结果当他们纠正错误 和使用统计1950年到数据预测经济增长到1971年,Frey (1984)发现McClelland 的历史成就需求测试问题因为它是很难隔离一个因素在社会层面上分析如此多的因果因素涉及 (Siehl &Martin,1990),似乎更好的测试在McClelland论文微级上事实上， 有许多研究已经进行了检测不同个人和群体之间的成就动机在个体差异的研究 中，研究者们通常代表性的衡量需要成就用个体企业家和相关，与个人绩效(如 公司增长，成功地获得资助)关于研究探索在成就动机群体之间的差异，研究人 员通常会利用“已知的群体”研究方法讨论了文学建构效度这是，研究人员确 定了两个或多个先前存在的群体(如。
企业家和经理人，科学家:和专业人士)和 测试意味着在一些因变量的差异在这些人群一些东西诸如：，在职业选择方面，研究人员检查了意味着成就动机的差异来测试麦克勒兰德的假设关于工作性能, 研究人员评估了成就动机差异足够高的表演团体的企业家在社会层面上研究相比，个人和已知的 集团研究允许清洁评估最初的假设麦克勒兰德而其中一些微观方面的研究已经显示显著的成就动机和创业行为之间的关 系，先前文献综述已经发现了三个主要问题第一，这些评审一致指出低部一致 性和优先测量成就需求的重测信度，TAT (主题知觉测试：即这两种类型的可靠 性往往少于60; Fineman,1977)第二，尽管替代成就动机措施(即：自我报告) 已经被开发出来，并且往往有高水平的部一致性和两次试验法的稳定性(Fineman, 1977; Spangler. 1992),这些自我报告的措施既不同意射影成就动机措施 (Fineman, 1977; Spangler. 1992)也不互相依存(Fineman, 1977)斯潘格勒 (1992)报道一个元分析在主题知觉测试相关性和自我报告测量平均0.09此外， 他还发现，受主持人影响不同的成就动机的测量与其他变量和关联不同的有差 异。
鉴于上述两个点，我们决定包括主题知觉测试和问卷调查进行分析测量第 三，在先前的文献中已经联合研究使用不同的微(个人和组)水平的分析他们的 评论然而，不适当结论可能得出在不同级别的分析概念开发在一个级别的分析 测试里，(Ostroff S Harrison,1999):因此，在我们的分析中我们分离这两个级 别i自从Spangler (1992)进行了之前的元分析的成就动机的研究，一些区别他 研究的关键我们需要被提到首先，在Spangler (1992)的研究中，只有115缺乏 5或4%的研究他使用涉及企业家或创业活动此外，Spangler的研究包括一个 非常异构数组的因变量包括智商测试分数、态度、寻求刺激，入学率在学术荣誉计划、性能环损耗 游戏，注册会计师，工业产出这一元分析仅限于只研究涉及企业家和企业家的性 能当测试预测效度的成就动机，至少构思是McClelland (1961),似乎是最好的 限制有效分析的领域，它是断言是最直接的适用例如，McClelland (1965)明确 的辩论出对于成就动机大学性能不是一个合适的领域(1965)最后，Spangler 没有测试同质性的效应大小的假设(Hedges&Olkin,1985)。
我们包括这个测试， 因为未能评估这种假设可能导致聚合来自多个种群的效应大小导致平均效应大 小估计并不适用于任何特定的人口(Hedges&Olkin,1985)坚持密切合作，最合适的理论领ii，使用不同成就动机的措施进行测试的 同质性的影响，并控制了已知的团队和个人之间的差异研究，我们相信这个元分 析有最好的机会准确识别成就动机的关系和性能企业家的定义一个主要的考证领域的在企业家精神的研究，研究人员一贯的还没有确定和 实施创“企业家”的定义(Kaufmann&Dant，1998年)；因此，很难比较已有的研 究结果Mill(1848)提供了一个在最早的关于企业家精神定义，并且建议风险承 受是主要特性去分别企业家和管理者McClel land(1961 )也认为，风险是一个至 关重要的元素当企业家面临的时候，他认为企业家精神的定义应围绕责任的启动 和负责的业务决策5cClelland (1961)认为，企业家应该包括小型企业的所有者 和其他拥有决策责的管理人员以下这些争论，一些研究人员既包括小型企业创 始人和管理者，并且考察成就动机的角色相比之下，Mill和McClel land, Schumpeter (1934)认为，企业家和管理 者都面临不同的风险而不是根据他们对创新的强调。
这背后的关键概念定义的创 业理念是增长和创建一个新的业务机会，一个先前不存在研究人员按照这个定 义倾向 于识别 企业家那些发起或引 导新合资企业的过程创造 (Shane&Venkataraman,2000)典型的企业家在此之后照样作为创始人的定义The Relationship of Achievement Motivation toEntrepreneurial Behavior: A Meta-AnalysisEntrepreneurship is a major factor in the national economy; thus, it is important to understand the motivational characteristics spurring people to become entrepreneurs and why some are more successful than others. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between achievement motivation and variables associated with entrepreneurial behavior. We found that achievement motivation was significantly correlated with both choice of an entrepreneurial career and entrepreneurial performance. Further, we found that both projective and self-report measures of achievement motivation were valid. Finally, known group studies yielded a higher validity coefficient than did individual difference studies.Nearly all supporters of the capitalistic system would agree that the encouragement of successful innovations and entrepreneurship is beneficial for the continued health and long-term growth of a nation's economy (Schumpeter, 1961). Further, small businesses account for over 50% of private sector employment and U.Sgross domestic product (Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy,2003).Because entrepreneurship is a dominant factor in the economy, researchers have examined a number of factors that may explain entrepreneurial activity.Though a good deal of recent research has tended to focus on the characteristics of the business and industry environment or the characteristics of the entrepreneurial opportunity itself (Kaufmann&Dant, 1998), our understanding of entrepreneurship will not be complete unless we understand the motivation of the individualsinvolved (Venkataraman, 1997). Indeed, recent research suggests that motivational traits are an important factor in entrepreneurial activity and success (Baum, Locke.& Smith, 2000; Stewart & Roth, 2001).Research on the motivational traits of entrepreneurs seems especially promising for helping to identify those individuals that might be best suited for identifying and exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities in the marketplace (Shane&Venkataraman, 2000). For example, individual traits and motivations may be used by schools, career counselors, investors, government agencies, and so on to identify individuals that may be suited to undertake and succeed in entrepreneurial ventures. Despite the potential importance of individual characteristics, there are still many unanswered questions regarding the role that motivation and personal characteristics have on entrepreneurial activity (Shane &Venkataraman, 2000). Therefore, in this article, we seek to better understand how one important motivating factor, need for achievement, is related to both the choice of entrepreneurship as a career and performance in entrepreneurial roles.The concept of need for achievement (nAch) was formulated in 1950s (McClelland, Clark. Roby, & Atkinson 1958). McClelland and his colleagues argued that high-nAch people are more likely than low-nAch people to engage in energetic and innovative activities that require planning for the future and entail anindividual's responsibility for task outcomes. McClelland (1961) argued that high-nAch people should also prefer tasks that involve skill and effort, provide clear performance feedback, and were of moderate challenge or risk,He also argued that entrepreneurial positions have more of these characteristics than other types of positions. Holland's (1985) vocation choice model suggests that individuals will be most attracted to careers that offer the environmental characteristics that match their personality. Holland (1985) also argued that performance and career satisfaction are higher when there is a good fit between work environment characteristics and personality. Therefore, as was suggested by McClelland (1961), it seems likely that individuals high in nAch should be attracted to and perform well in entrepreneurial jobs.Although there is a considerable body of literature in the area ofachievement motivation and entrepreneurship, there are important issues that have yet to be addressed. For example. Johnson (1990) conducted a traditional review of this literature and concluded that there is evidence of a relationship between achievement motivation and entrepreneurial activity. However, a close examination of Johnson'sreview raises some questions about the strength of this conclusion. First, because of the narrative nature of this review, the magnitude of the relationship between achievement motivation and entrepreneurial activity is unclear. In fact, many of the studies reviewed by Johnson showed nonsignificant relationships between achievement motivation and entrepreneurial activity. Johnson's review also indicated that there was considerable variance in the results across studies, suggesting that there maybe moderators of the achievement motivation-entrepreneurial activity relationship. In contrast to traditional reviews. meta-analysis has the potential to address some of these issues by quantitatively combining the results of individual studies to estimate the magnitude of the relationship (Hunter & Schmidt,1990) and by allowing formal tests of potential moderators of these relationships.This study has three objectives. First, we assess the degree of support for McClelland's claim by conducting a meta-analytic review of the achievement motivation and entrepreneurship research that is sensitive to level of analysis issues.Second, we identify and test several potentialentrepreneurial action. Third, we compare the validity of achievement motivation measures as a function of measurement methodology (e.g., projective measure vs. self-report questionnaire measures). We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and for organizations and institutions interested entrepreneurship.BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESESMuch of the early work on achievement motivation was conducted at the macro level of analysis. McClelland (1961) hypothesized that countries with a higher mean level of nAch would show more entrepreneurial activity and economic growth than those countries with a lower mean level of nAch. He found a statistically significant relationship between a country's average level of nAch (as measured by children's stories) and the subsequent economic growth of that country. He also found evidence for the relationship between nAch and entrepreneurial activity based on historical records of earlier societies. However, McClelland's claims have not gone unchallenged (e.g., Finison, 1976; Frey, 1984: Mazur&Rosa, 1977). Both Finison (1976) and Mazur and Rosa (1977) failed to replicate McClelland's results when they corrected for statistical errors and used 1950 nAch data to predict economic growth through 1971, and Frey (1984) found problems with McClelland's historical tests of nAch.Because it is very difficult to isolate one causal factor at thesocietal level of analysis when so many causal factors are involved (Siehl & Martin, 1990), it would seem better to test McClelland's thesis at a more micro level. Indeed, there are a number of studies that have been conducted that examine differences in achievement motivation between both individuals and known groups. In individual differences studies, researchers have typically measured the need for achievement of individual entrepreneurs and correlated that measure with individual performance(e.g., firm growth, successfully gaining funding). Regarding studies exploring differences in achievement motivation between groups, researchers have typically utilized the "known-group" research approach discussed in the construct validity literature. That is, researchers identified two or more preexisting groups of individuals(e.g., entrepreneurs versus managers, scientists: and professionals) and tested for mean differences on some dependent variable among these groups. For example, in terms of career choice, researchers have examined mean differences in achievement motivation to test McClelland's hypotheses. Regarding job performance, researchers have assessed achievement motivation differences between high and low performing groups of entrepreneurs. In contrast to societal level studies, individual and known group studies allow cleaner assessment of McClelland's original hypotheses.Whereas some of these micro level studies have shown a significant relationship between achievement motivation and entrepreneurial behavior, previous reviews of this literature have uncovered three major problems, First. these reviews consistently point to the low internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the preferred measure of nAch, the TAT (Thematic Apperception Test: i.e., both types of reliability are often less than .60; Fineman, 1977). Second, although alternative achievement motivation measures (i.e., self-report) have been developed and tend to have high levels of internal consistency and test-retest stability (Fineman. 1977;Spangler, 1992), these self-report measures agree neither with projective achievement motivation measures (Fineman, 1977; Spangler. 1992) nor with each other(Fineman, 1977). Spangler (1992) reported a meta-analytic average correlation of 0.09 between the TAT and the self-report measures. Furthermore, he found that the different achievement motivation measures correlated differently with other variables and were differentially affected by moderators. Given the aforementioned two points. we decided to include both TAT and questionnaire measures in our analysis. Third, previous reviews have combined studies using different micro(individual and group) levels of analysis in their reviews. However, inappropriate conclusions can be drawn when concepts developed at one level of analysis are tested at a different level of analysis (Ostroff S Harrison, 1999): Thus, in ouranalysis we separated these two levelsiiiSince Spangler (1992) conducted a previous meta-analysis of achievement motivation studies, some key differences between his study and ours need to be mentioned. First, in Spangler's (1992) study, only 5 out of 115 or 4% of the studies he used involved entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial activity. In addition, SpanglerJs studies included a very heterogeneous array of dependent variables.including IQ test scores, attitudes, sensation seeking, enrollment in an academic honors program, performance on a ring loss game, CPA, and industrial output. This meta-analysis was restricted to only studies involving entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial performance. When testing the predictive validity of achievement motivation, at least as conceived by McClelland (1961), it seems best to restrict validity analysis to thedomain where it is asserted to bemost directly applicable. For example, McClelland (1965) explicitly argued that college performance was not an appropriate domain for achievement motivation (1965). Finally, Spangler did not test the homogeneity of effect size assumption (Hedges&Olkin, 1985). We included this test, because failure to assess this assumption can lead to the aggregation of effect sizes from multiple populations resulting in an average effect size estimate that does not generalize to any particular population (Hedges&Olkin, 1985).By sticking closely to the most appropriate theoretical domain,iv using different measures of achievement motivation. conducting a test of homogeneity of effects, and controlling for differences between known group and individual studies, we believe that this meta-analysis has the best chance of accurately identifying the relationship between achievement motivation and performance.Definitions of EntrepreneurOne major criticism of research in the area of entrepreneurship is that researchers have not consistently defined and operationalized what they mean by "entrepreneurs'(Kaufmann&Dant. 1998); thus, it is difficult to compare findings across studies. Mill (1848) provided one of the earliest definitions of entrepreneurship and suggested that risk bearing was the major feature that separated entrepreneurs from managers. McClel land (1961) also argued that risk is an essential element faced by entrepreneurs, and he argued that the definition of entrepreneurship should center on the responsibilities of initiating and being accountable for business decisions. McClelland (1961) argued that entrepreneurs should include both the owners of small businesses and other managers with decision-making responsibilities. Following these arguments, some researchers have included both small business founders and managers when examining the role of achievement motivation.In contrast to Mill and McClel land, Schumpeter (1934) argued that both entrepreneurs and managers face risk and instead differ in terms of their emphasis on innovation. The key notion behind this definition of entrepreneurship is the idea of growth and creation of a new business opportunity where one did not exist previously. Researchers that follow this definition tend to identify entrepreneurs .。