Development and testing of the capacity of organisations for system practices scale

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Melinda Craike, Larissa Bartlett, Amy Mowle, Therese Riley, Michelle Krahe, Bojana Klepac
{"title":"Development and testing of the capacity of organisations for system practices scale","authors":"Melinda Craike, Larissa Bartlett, Amy Mowle, Therese Riley, Michelle Krahe, Bojana Klepac","doi":"10.1002/hpja.922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundSystems change approaches are increasingly adopted in public health to address complex problems. It is important that measures of systems change be developed so that the effects of systems change on health outcomes can be evaluated. Organisational practices are potential levers for systems change. However, robust measures of organisational capacity to engage in these practices are lacking. Informed by the Theory of Systems Change, we developed and tested the Capacity of Organisations for System Practices (COSP) scale. The COSP scale comprises four inter‐related system practices within organisations—adaptation, alignment, collaboration and evidence‐driven action and learning.MethodsWe applied a three‐stage process: (1) Item generation; (2) Scale pre‐testing; and (3) Structural analyses. Item response theory tests and semantic review, together with factor analytic techniques, were applied to refine the item set and determine the scale structure.ResultsAn initial pool of 97 items was generated and pre‐tested with six content experts and four target audience representatives. Modifications resulted in 60 items. In total, 126 participants provided data for the structural analysis. A second‐order hierarchical four‐factor model fit the data better than the more basic correlated factor model (Δ<jats:italic>χ</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> = 1.758, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .415). The fit indices for the final 31‐item model were acceptable (RMSEA = .084, TLI = .819).ConclusionsThe COSP scale is ready for further testing to ensure construct validity, stability and utility.So What?Once validated, the Capacity of Organisations for System Practices (COSP) scale has the potential to advance the theory and practice of systems change approaches.","PeriodicalId":47379,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Journal of Australia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.922","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundSystems change approaches are increasingly adopted in public health to address complex problems. It is important that measures of systems change be developed so that the effects of systems change on health outcomes can be evaluated. Organisational practices are potential levers for systems change. However, robust measures of organisational capacity to engage in these practices are lacking. Informed by the Theory of Systems Change, we developed and tested the Capacity of Organisations for System Practices (COSP) scale. The COSP scale comprises four inter‐related system practices within organisations—adaptation, alignment, collaboration and evidence‐driven action and learning.MethodsWe applied a three‐stage process: (1) Item generation; (2) Scale pre‐testing; and (3) Structural analyses. Item response theory tests and semantic review, together with factor analytic techniques, were applied to refine the item set and determine the scale structure.ResultsAn initial pool of 97 items was generated and pre‐tested with six content experts and four target audience representatives. Modifications resulted in 60 items. In total, 126 participants provided data for the structural analysis. A second‐order hierarchical four‐factor model fit the data better than the more basic correlated factor model (Δχ2 = 1.758, p = .415). The fit indices for the final 31‐item model were acceptable (RMSEA = .084, TLI = .819).ConclusionsThe COSP scale is ready for further testing to ensure construct validity, stability and utility.So What?Once validated, the Capacity of Organisations for System Practices (COSP) scale has the potential to advance the theory and practice of systems change approaches.
发展和检验各组织系统实践规模的能力
背景公共卫生领域越来越多地采用系统变革方法来解决复杂的问题。制定系统变革的衡量标准非常重要,这样才能评估系统变革对健康结果的影响。组织实践是系统变革的潜在杠杆。然而,目前还缺乏衡量组织参与这些实践能力的有力措施。根据系统变革理论,我们开发并测试了组织系统实践能力(COSP)量表。COSP 量表包括组织内四种相互关联的系统实践--适应、协调、协作和以证据为导向的行动与学习。方法我们采用了三阶段流程:(1)项目生成;(2)量表预测试;(3)结构分析。我们采用项目反应理论测试和语义审查以及因子分析技术来完善项目集和确定量表结构。结果初步生成了 97 个项目,并由六位内容专家和四位目标受众代表进行了预试。修改后产生了 60 个项目。共有 126 名参与者为结构分析提供了数据。二阶分层四因素模型比更基本的相关因素模型更适合数据(Δχ2 = 1.758,p = .415)。结论COSP量表已准备好接受进一步测试,以确保其结构效度、稳定性和实用性。一旦通过验证,系统实践组织能力(COSP)量表就有可能推动系统变革方法的理论和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Promotion Journal of Australia
Health Promotion Journal of Australia PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.50%
发文量
115
期刊介绍: The purpose of the Health Promotion Journal of Australia is to facilitate communication between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers involved in health promotion activities. Preference for publication is given to practical examples of policies, theories, strategies and programs which utilise educational, organisational, economic and/or environmental approaches to health promotion. The journal also publishes brief reports discussing programs, professional viewpoints, and guidelines for practice or evaluation methodology. The journal features articles, brief reports, editorials, perspectives, "of interest", viewpoints, book reviews and letters.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信