卫生专业人员领导力量表的心理测量特征:系统回顾。

Melissa A Carlson, Sarah Morris, Fiona Day, Ann Dadich, Annika Ryan, Elizabeth A Fradgley, Christine Paul
{"title":"卫生专业人员领导力量表的心理测量特征:系统回顾。","authors":"Melissa A Carlson, Sarah Morris, Fiona Day, Ann Dadich, Annika Ryan, Elizabeth A Fradgley, Christine Paul","doi":"10.1186/s13012-021-01141-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The important role of leaders in the translation of health research is acknowledged in the implementation science literature. However, the accurate measurement of leadership traits and behaviours in health professionals has not been directly addressed. This review aimed to identify whether scales which measure leadership traits and behaviours have been found to be reliable and valid for use with health professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, ABI/INFORMIT and Business Source Ultimate were searched to identify publications which reported original research testing the reliability, validity or acceptability of a leadership-related scale with health professionals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2814 records, a total of 39 studies met the inclusion criteria, from which 33 scales were identified as having undergone some form of psychometric testing with health professionals. The most commonly used was the Implementation Leadership Scale (n = 5) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (n = 3). Of the 33 scales, the majority of scales were validated in English speaking countries including the USA (n = 15) and Canada (n = 4), but also with some translations and use in Europe and Asia, predominantly with samples of nurses (n = 27) or allied health professionals (n = 10). Only two validation studies included physicians. Content validity and internal consistency were evident for most scales (n = 30 and 29, respectively). Only 20 of the 33 scales were found to satisfy the acceptable thresholds for good construct validity. Very limited testing occurred in relation to test-re-test reliability, responsiveness, acceptability, cross-cultural revalidation, convergent validity, discriminant validity and criterion validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Seven scales may be sufficiently sound to be used with professionals, primarily with nurses. There is an absence of validation of leadership scales with regard to physicians. Given that physicians, along with nurses and allied health professionals have a leadership role in driving the implementation of evidence-based healthcare, this constitutes a clear gap in the psychometric testing of leadership scales for use in healthcare implementation research and practice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (see Additional File 1) (PLoS Medicine. 6:e1000097, 2009) and the associated protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration Number CRD42019121544 ).</p>","PeriodicalId":417097,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science : IS","volume":" ","pages":"85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8403357/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric properties of leadership scales for health professionals: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Melissa A Carlson, Sarah Morris, Fiona Day, Ann Dadich, Annika Ryan, Elizabeth A Fradgley, Christine Paul\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13012-021-01141-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The important role of leaders in the translation of health research is acknowledged in the implementation science literature. However, the accurate measurement of leadership traits and behaviours in health professionals has not been directly addressed. This review aimed to identify whether scales which measure leadership traits and behaviours have been found to be reliable and valid for use with health professionals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, ABI/INFORMIT and Business Source Ultimate were searched to identify publications which reported original research testing the reliability, validity or acceptability of a leadership-related scale with health professionals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2814 records, a total of 39 studies met the inclusion criteria, from which 33 scales were identified as having undergone some form of psychometric testing with health professionals. The most commonly used was the Implementation Leadership Scale (n = 5) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (n = 3). Of the 33 scales, the majority of scales were validated in English speaking countries including the USA (n = 15) and Canada (n = 4), but also with some translations and use in Europe and Asia, predominantly with samples of nurses (n = 27) or allied health professionals (n = 10). Only two validation studies included physicians. Content validity and internal consistency were evident for most scales (n = 30 and 29, respectively). Only 20 of the 33 scales were found to satisfy the acceptable thresholds for good construct validity. Very limited testing occurred in relation to test-re-test reliability, responsiveness, acceptability, cross-cultural revalidation, convergent validity, discriminant validity and criterion validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Seven scales may be sufficiently sound to be used with professionals, primarily with nurses. There is an absence of validation of leadership scales with regard to physicians. Given that physicians, along with nurses and allied health professionals have a leadership role in driving the implementation of evidence-based healthcare, this constitutes a clear gap in the psychometric testing of leadership scales for use in healthcare implementation research and practice.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (see Additional File 1) (PLoS Medicine. 6:e1000097, 2009) and the associated protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration Number CRD42019121544 ).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":417097,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Implementation Science : IS\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"85\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8403357/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Implementation Science : IS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01141-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science : IS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01141-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:领导者在卫生研究翻译中的重要作用在实施科学文献中得到承认。然而,对卫生专业人员领导特质和行为的准确测量尚未得到直接解决。本综述旨在确定衡量领导特质和行为的量表是否可靠和有效,适用于卫生专业人员。方法:进行系统评价。我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO、Cochrane、CINAHL、Scopus、ABI/INFORMIT和Business Source Ultimate,以确定报告了对卫生专业人员领导相关量表的可靠性、有效性或可接受性进行测试的原始研究的出版物。结果:在2814项记录中,共有39项研究符合纳入标准,其中33项量表被确定为经过了卫生专业人员的某种形式的心理测量测试。最常用的是实施领导力量表(n = 5)和多因素领导力问卷(n = 3)。在33个量表中,大多数量表在英语国家得到验证,包括美国(n = 15)和加拿大(n = 4),但也有一些翻译和在欧洲和亚洲使用,主要是护士(n = 27)或专职卫生专业人员(n = 10)的样本。只有两项验证研究纳入了医生。大多数量表的内容效度和内部一致性都很明显(n分别= 30和29)。33个量表中只有20个被发现满足良好结构效度的可接受阈值。在测试-再测试信度、反应性、可接受性、跨文化再验证、聚合效度、区别效度和标准效度方面进行了非常有限的测试。结论:七个量表可能足够健全,可用于专业人员,主要是护士。对于医生来说,缺乏领导力量表的有效性。鉴于医生、护士和专职卫生专业人员在推动循证医疗保健的实施方面发挥着领导作用,这在用于医疗保健实施研究和实践的领导力量表的心理测量测试中构成了明显的差距。试验注册:本综述遵循系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)(见附加文件1)(PLoS Medicine. 6:e1000097, 2009),相关方案已在普洛斯彼罗国际前瞻性系统评价注册(注册号CRD42019121544)注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Psychometric properties of leadership scales for health professionals: a systematic review.

Psychometric properties of leadership scales for health professionals: a systematic review.

Psychometric properties of leadership scales for health professionals: a systematic review.

Background: The important role of leaders in the translation of health research is acknowledged in the implementation science literature. However, the accurate measurement of leadership traits and behaviours in health professionals has not been directly addressed. This review aimed to identify whether scales which measure leadership traits and behaviours have been found to be reliable and valid for use with health professionals.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, ABI/INFORMIT and Business Source Ultimate were searched to identify publications which reported original research testing the reliability, validity or acceptability of a leadership-related scale with health professionals.

Results: Of 2814 records, a total of 39 studies met the inclusion criteria, from which 33 scales were identified as having undergone some form of psychometric testing with health professionals. The most commonly used was the Implementation Leadership Scale (n = 5) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (n = 3). Of the 33 scales, the majority of scales were validated in English speaking countries including the USA (n = 15) and Canada (n = 4), but also with some translations and use in Europe and Asia, predominantly with samples of nurses (n = 27) or allied health professionals (n = 10). Only two validation studies included physicians. Content validity and internal consistency were evident for most scales (n = 30 and 29, respectively). Only 20 of the 33 scales were found to satisfy the acceptable thresholds for good construct validity. Very limited testing occurred in relation to test-re-test reliability, responsiveness, acceptability, cross-cultural revalidation, convergent validity, discriminant validity and criterion validity.

Conclusions: Seven scales may be sufficiently sound to be used with professionals, primarily with nurses. There is an absence of validation of leadership scales with regard to physicians. Given that physicians, along with nurses and allied health professionals have a leadership role in driving the implementation of evidence-based healthcare, this constitutes a clear gap in the psychometric testing of leadership scales for use in healthcare implementation research and practice.

Trial registration: This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (see Additional File 1) (PLoS Medicine. 6:e1000097, 2009) and the associated protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration Number CRD42019121544 ).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信