↓ Skip to main content

Development and preliminary validation of a leadership competency instrument for existing and emerging allied health professional leaders

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and preliminary validation of a leadership competency instrument for existing and emerging allied health professional leaders
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1301-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hui-Gek Ang, Jeremy Meng-Yeow Koh, Jeffrey Lee, Yong-Hao Pua

Abstract

No instruments, to our knowledge, exist to assess leadership competency in existing and emerging allied health professional (AHP) leaders. This paper describes the development and preliminary exploration of the psychometric properties of a leadership competency instrument for existing and emerging AHP leaders and examines (i) its factor structure, (ii) its convergent validity with the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI), and (iii) its discriminative validity in AHPs with different grades. During development, we included 25 items in the AHEAD (Aspiring leaders in Healthcare-Empowering individuals, Achieving excellence, Developing talents) instrument. A cross-sectional study was then conducted in 106 high-potential AHPs from Singapore General Hospital (34 men and 72 women) of different professional grades (49 principal-grade AHPs, 41 senior-grade AHPs, and 16 junior-grade AHPs) who completed both AHEAD and LPI instruments. Exploratory factor analysis was used to test the theoretical structure of AHEAD. Spearman correlation analysis was performed to evaluate the convergent validity of AHEAD with LPI. Using proportional odds regression models, we evaluated the association of grades of AHPs with AHEAD and LPI. To assess discriminative validity, the c-statistics - a measure of discrimination - were derived from these ordinal models. As theorized, factor analysis suggested a two-factor solution, where "skills" and "values" formed separate factors. Internal consistency of AHEAD was excellent (α-values > 0.88). Total and component AHEAD and LPI scores correlated moderately (Spearman ρ-values, 0.37 to 0.58). The c-index for discriminating between AHP grades was higher for AHEAD than for the LPI (0.76 vs. 0.65). The factorial structure of AHEAD was generally supported in our study. AHEAD showed convergent validity with the LPI and outperformed the LPI in terms of discriminative validity. These results provide initial evidence for the use of AHEAD to assess leadership competency in AHPs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Researcher 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Psychology 6 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 11%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,839,537
of 13,176,115 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,894
of 4,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,935
of 267,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,176,115 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,389 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 267,380 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them