Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure

Implementation Science

Bryan J Weiner¹  Kerry Bruce⁵  Denise A Esserman³  Sara R Jacobs²  Christopher M Shea⁴ 

[1] Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, CB # 7411, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;Pact Inc, Washington, DC, USA

关键词: Psychometrics;    Measure development;    Readiness for change;   

Others  :  810558
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-9-7

 received in 2013-09-05, accepted in 2013-12-18,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Organizational readiness for change in healthcare settings is an important factor in successful implementation of new policies, programs, and practices. However, research on the topic is hindered by the absence of a brief, reliable, and valid measure. Until such a measure is developed, we cannot advance scientific knowledge about readiness or provide evidence-based guidance to organizational leaders about how to increase readiness. This article presents results of a psychometric assessment of a new measure called Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC), which we developed based on Weiner’s theory of organizational readiness for change.

Methods

We conducted four studies to assess the psychometric properties of ORIC. In study one, we assessed the content adequacy of the new measure using quantitative methods. In study two, we examined the measure’s factor structure and reliability in a laboratory simulation. In study three, we assessed the reliability and validity of an organization-level measure of readiness based on aggregated individual-level data from study two. In study four, we conducted a small field study utilizing the same analytic methods as in study three.

Results

Content adequacy assessment indicated that the items developed to measure change commitment and change efficacy reflected the theoretical content of these two facets of organizational readiness and distinguished the facets from hypothesized determinants of readiness. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in the lab and field studies revealed two correlated factors, as expected, with good model fit and high item loadings. Reliability analysis in the lab and field studies showed high inter-item consistency for the resulting individual-level scales for change commitment and change efficacy. Inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement statistics supported the aggregation of individual level readiness perceptions to the organizational level of analysis.

Conclusions

This article provides evidence in support of the ORIC measure. We believe this measure will enable testing of theories about determinants and consequences of organizational readiness and, ultimately, assist healthcare leaders to reduce the number of health organization change efforts that do not achieve desired benefits. Although ORIC shows promise, further assessment is needed to test for convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Shea et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kotter JP: Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Press; 1996.
• [2]Weiner BJ, Amick H, Lee SY: Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: a review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Med Care Res Rev 2008, 65(4):379-436.
• [3]Weiner BJ, Lewis MA, Linnan LA: Using organization theory to understand the determinants of effective implementation of worksite health promotion programs. Health Educ Res 2009, 24(2):292-305.
• [4]Alexander JA, Hearld LR: Methods and metrics challenges of delivery-system research. Imp Sci 2012, 7:15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Helfrich CD, et al.: Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): development of an instrument based on the promoting action on research in health services (PARIHS) framework. Imp Sci 2009, 4:38. BioMed Central Full Text
• [6]Holt DT, et al.: Readiness for organizational change: the systematic development of a scale. J Appl Behav Sci 2007, 43(2):232-255.
• [7]Lehman WEK, Greener JM, Simpson DD: Assessing organizational readiness for change. J Subst Abus Treat 2002, 22(4):197-209.
• [8]Weiner BJ: A theory of organizational readiness for change. Imp Sci 2009, 4:67.10.
• [9]Nunnally JC: Psychometric theory. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. [McGraw-Hill series in psychology] xv, 701 p
• [10]Schriesheim CA, et al.: Improving construct measurement in management research - comments and a quantitative approach for assessing the theoretical content adequacy of paper-and-pencil survey-type instruments. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 1993, 19(2):385-417.
• [11]Carlson DS, Kacmar KM, Williams LJ: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. J Vocat Behav 2000, 56(2):249-276.
• [12]Hinkin TR, Tracey JB: An analysis of variance approach to content validation. Organ Res Methods 1999, 2(2):175-186.
• [13]Herscovitch L, Meyer JP: Commitment to organizational change: extension of a three- component model. J Appl Psychol 2002, 87(3):474-487.
• [14]Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS: Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th edition. Boston, M.A: Allyn and Bacon; 2001. Boston
• [15]LeBreton JM, Senter JL: Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organ Res Methods 2008, 11(4):815-852.
• [16]Comrey AL: A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press; 1973. xii, 316
• [17]Hu LT, Bentler PM: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus New alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling-a Multidisciplinary Journal 1999, 6(1):1-55.
• [18]Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988. xxi, 567 p
• [19]Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ: Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Acad Manag Rev 1994, 19(2):195-229.
• [20]Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ: From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organ Res Methods 2000, 3(3):211-236.
• [21]Bliese PD, Halverson RR: Group size and measures of group-level properties: an examination of eta-squared and ICC values. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 1998, 24(2):157-172.
• [22]Bliese PD: Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis, in Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. K.J. Klein and S.W.J. Kozlowski edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2000:349-381.
• [23]Cohen A, Doveh E, Nahum-Shani I: Testing agreement for multi-item scales with the indices rWG(J) and ADM(J). Organ Res Methods 2009, 12(1):148-164.
• [24]Bliese PD: Mulilevel modeling in R (2.4): A brief introduction to R, the multilevel package and the nlme package. Washington DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research; 2012.
• [25]Murphy KR, Myors B, Wolach AH: Statistical power analysis: a simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge; 2009. xii, 212 p
• [26]Campbell MK, Fayers PM, Grimshaw JM: Determinants of the intracluster correlation coefficient in cluster randomized trials: the case of implementation research. Clin Trials 2005, 2(2):99-107.
• [27]Burke MJ, Dunlap WP: Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: a user’s guide. Organ Res Methods 2002, 5(2):159-172.
• [28]Lehman WE, Greener JM, Simpson DD: Assessing organizational readiness for change. J Subst Abuse Treat 2002, 22(4):197-209. 30
• [29]Arthaud-Day ML, Rode JC, Turnley WH: Direct and contextual effects of individual values on organizational citizenship behavior in teams. J Appl Psychol 2012, 97(4):792-807.
• [30]Christian JS, et al.: Examining retaliatory responses to justice violations and recovery attempts in teams. J Appl Psychol 2012, 97(6):1218-1232.