Psychometric properties of leadership scales for health professionals: a systematic review.
Psychometric properties of leadership scales for health professionals: a systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-021-01141-z
复制
发表时间：
2021-08-28
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Paul C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carlson MA;Morris S;Day F;Dadich A;Ryan A;Fradgley EA;Paul C
领导者在健康研究转化中的重要作用在实施科学文献中得到了认可。然而，对卫生专业人员的领导特质和行为的准确衡量尚未得到直接解决。本次审查旨在确定衡量领导特质和行为的量表对于卫生专业人员的使用是否可靠且有效。进行了系统审查。检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO、Cochrane、CINAHL、Scopus、ABI/INFORMIT 和 Business Source Ultimate，以识别报告了与卫生专业人员一起测试领导力相关量表的可靠性、有效性或可接受性的原始研究的出版物。在 2814 项记录中，共有 39 项研究符合纳入标准，其中 33 项量表被确定为接受了卫生专业人员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进行了验证，包括美国 (n = 15) 和加拿大 (n = 4)，但也在欧洲和亚洲进行了一些翻译和使用，主要以护士 (n = 27) 或专职医疗专业人员 (n = 10) 为样本。只有两项验证研究包括医生。大多数量表的内容效度和内部一致性都很明显（分别为 n = 30 和 29）。 33 个量表中只有 20 个满足良好结构效度的可接受阈值。在重测可靠性、响应性、可接受性、跨文化重新验证、收敛效度、区分效度和标准效度方面进行的测试非常有限。七个量表可能足够适合专业人员（主要是护士）使用。缺乏对医生领导力量表的验证。鉴于医生、护士和专职医疗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，这在医疗保健实施研究和实践中使用的领导力量表的心理测量测试中存在明显的差距。本综述遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目 (PRISMA)（参见附加文件 1）（PLoS Medicine.6:e1000097, 2009），相关方案已在 PROSPERO 国际系统评价前瞻性登记册中注册（注册号 CRD42019121544）。在线版本包含可在 10.1186/s13012-021-01141-z 获取的补充材料。
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. 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. 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. 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. 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). The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01141-z.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
发表时间：
2009-08-07
期刊：
Implementation science : IS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Damschroder LJ;Aron DC;Keith RE;Kirsh SR;Alexander JA;Lowery JC
通讯作者：
Lowery JC
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Berghout MA;Fabbricotti IN;Buljac-Samardžić M;Hilders CGJM
通讯作者：
Hilders CGJM
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Ang HG;Koh JM;Lee J;Pua YH
通讯作者：
Pua YH
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Gifford WA;Holyoke P;Squires JE;Angus D;Brosseau L;Egan M;Graham ID;Miller C;Wallin L
通讯作者：
Wallin L
影响因子：
2
作者：
Adams, Jeffrey M.;Nikolaev, Nikolay;Jones, Dorothy A.
通讯作者：
Jones, Dorothy A.