Title |
Assessing an organizational culture instrument based on the Competing Values Framework: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses
|
---|---|
Published in |
Implementation Science, April 2007
|
DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-2-13 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Christian D Helfrich, Yu-Fang Li, David C Mohr, Mark Meterko, Anne E Sales |
Abstract |
The Competing Values Framework (CVF) has been widely used in health services research to assess organizational culture as a predictor of quality improvement implementation, employee and patient satisfaction, and team functioning, among other outcomes. CVF instruments generally are presented as well-validated with reliable aggregated subscales. However, only one study in the health sector has been conducted for the express purpose of validation, and that study population was limited to hospital managers from a single geographic locale. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 494 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 6 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Thailand | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | <1% |
Spain | 1 | <1% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 478 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 100 | 20% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 78 | 16% |
Researcher | 51 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 51 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 5% |
Other | 97 | 20% |
Unknown | 90 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Business, Management and Accounting | 148 | 30% |
Social Sciences | 55 | 11% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 9% |
Psychology | 41 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 5% |
Other | 77 | 16% |
Unknown | 104 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,170,673
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,484
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,583
of 72,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 72,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.