The Group Nurturance Inventory - initial psychometric evaluation using Rasch and factor analysis.


Journal

BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
26 07 2021
Historique:
received: 08 11 2020
accepted: 29 06 2021
entrez: 27 7 2021
pubmed: 28 7 2021
medline: 6 8 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

This paper describes the development and psychometric evaluation of a behavioral assessment instrument primarily intended for use with workgroups in any type of organization. The instrument was developed based on the Nurturing Environments framework which describes four domains important for health, well-being, and productivity; minimizing toxic social interactions, teaching and reinforcing prosocial behaviors, limiting opportunities for problem behaviors, and promoting psychological flexibility. The instrument is freely available to use and adapt under a CC-BY license and intended as a tool that is easy for any group to use and interpret to identify key behaviors to improve their psychosocial work environment. Questionnaire data of perceived frequency of behaviors relevant to nurturance were collected from nine different organizations in Sweden. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, Rasch analysis, and correlations to investigate relationships with relevant workplace measures. The results indicate that the 23-item instrument is usefully divided in two factors, which can be described as risk and protective factors. Toxic social behaviors make up the risk factor, while the protective factor includes prosocial behavior, behaviors that limit problems, and psychological flexibility. Rasch analysis showed that the response categories work as intended for all items, item fit is satisfactory, and there was no significant differential item functioning across age or gender. Targeting indicates that measurement precision is skewed towards lower levels of both factors, while item thresholds are distributed over the range of participant abilities, particularly for the protective factor. A Rasch score table is available for ordinal to interval data transformation. This initial analysis shows promising results, while more data is needed to investigate group-level measurement properties and validation against concrete longitudinal outcomes. We provide recommendations for how to work in practice with a group based on their assessment data, and how to optimize the measurement precision further. By using a two-dimensional assessment with ratings of both frequency and perceived importance of behaviors the instrument can help facilitate a participatory group development process. The Group Nurturance Inventory is freely available to use and adapt for both commercial and non-commercial use and could help promote transparent assessment practices in organizational and group development.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
This paper describes the development and psychometric evaluation of a behavioral assessment instrument primarily intended for use with workgroups in any type of organization. The instrument was developed based on the Nurturing Environments framework which describes four domains important for health, well-being, and productivity; minimizing toxic social interactions, teaching and reinforcing prosocial behaviors, limiting opportunities for problem behaviors, and promoting psychological flexibility. The instrument is freely available to use and adapt under a CC-BY license and intended as a tool that is easy for any group to use and interpret to identify key behaviors to improve their psychosocial work environment.
METHODS
Questionnaire data of perceived frequency of behaviors relevant to nurturance were collected from nine different organizations in Sweden. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, Rasch analysis, and correlations to investigate relationships with relevant workplace measures.
RESULTS
The results indicate that the 23-item instrument is usefully divided in two factors, which can be described as risk and protective factors. Toxic social behaviors make up the risk factor, while the protective factor includes prosocial behavior, behaviors that limit problems, and psychological flexibility. Rasch analysis showed that the response categories work as intended for all items, item fit is satisfactory, and there was no significant differential item functioning across age or gender. Targeting indicates that measurement precision is skewed towards lower levels of both factors, while item thresholds are distributed over the range of participant abilities, particularly for the protective factor. A Rasch score table is available for ordinal to interval data transformation.
CONCLUSIONS
This initial analysis shows promising results, while more data is needed to investigate group-level measurement properties and validation against concrete longitudinal outcomes. We provide recommendations for how to work in practice with a group based on their assessment data, and how to optimize the measurement precision further. By using a two-dimensional assessment with ratings of both frequency and perceived importance of behaviors the instrument can help facilitate a participatory group development process. The Group Nurturance Inventory is freely available to use and adapt for both commercial and non-commercial use and could help promote transparent assessment practices in organizational and group development.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34311736
doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-11474-5
pii: 10.1186/s12889-021-11474-5
pmc: PMC8311413
doi:

Banques de données

figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.13042010']

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1454

Informations de copyright

© 2021. The Author(s).

Références

Clin Psychol Rev. 2020 Nov;81:101893
pubmed: 32858377
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2000 Jun;73 Suppl:S41-5
pubmed: 10968560
J Occup Environ Med. 2005 Jul;47(7):671-82
pubmed: 16010194
JAMA Psychiatry. 2020 Aug 1;77(8):842-851
pubmed: 32236498
J Appl Psychol. 1997 Apr;82(2):247-52
pubmed: 9109282
J Appl Psychol. 2016 Aug;101(8):1134-50
pubmed: 27123697
Res Dev Disabil. 2012 Nov-Dec;33(6):1780-91
pubmed: 22699251
Psychol Bull. 1985 Sep;98(2):310-57
pubmed: 3901065
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Sep 19;15(1):181
pubmed: 28927468
Air Med J. 2003 Sep-Oct;22(5):18-22
pubmed: 14671770
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:1-32
pubmed: 18509902
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2020 Dec;23(4):462-482
pubmed: 32839866
Behav Res Methods. 2016 Sep;48(3):936-49
pubmed: 26174714
Behav Ther. 2011 Dec;42(4):676-88
pubmed: 22035996
Am J Health Behav. 2004 Sep-Oct;28(5):444-55
pubmed: 15482974
J Occup Health Psychol. 1998 Oct;3(4):322-55
pubmed: 9805280
Clin Psychol Rev. 2021 Jan 21;84:101973
pubmed: 33550157
Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:397-422
pubmed: 11148311
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Dec 15;57(8):1358-62
pubmed: 18050173
Am Psychol. 2012 May-Jun;67(4):257-71
pubmed: 22583340
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 12;8(8):e70541
pubmed: 23950957
J Occup Health Psychol. 2002 Jan;7(1):84-93
pubmed: 11827236
Res Dev Disabil. 2011 May-Jun;32(3):1065-74
pubmed: 21316918
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1998 Oct;68(4):512-20
pubmed: 9809111
Occup Environ Med. 2017 Mar;74(4):301-310
pubmed: 28108676
J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96
pubmed: 6668417
J Occup Health Psychol. 1996 Jan;1(1):27-41
pubmed: 9547031
Ergonomics. 2001 Jun 10;44(7):696-718
pubmed: 11437204
Value Health. 2005 Mar-Apr;8(2):94-104
pubmed: 15804318
Br J Clin Psychol. 2007 Mar;46(Pt 1):1-18
pubmed: 17472198
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2012 Jan;105(1):33-9
pubmed: 22369916
J Appl Psychol. 1997 Apr;82(2):253-61
pubmed: 9109283
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Apr;57(4):285-93
pubmed: 12646546
Scand J Psychol. 2013 Dec;54(6):502-7
pubmed: 24118069
Psychol Assess. 2020 Sep;32(9):829-850
pubmed: 32614192
Occup Environ Med. 2010 Aug;67(8):526-31
pubmed: 20573847
J Occup Environ Med. 2013 Sep;55(9):993-1000
pubmed: 24013656
Psychol Assess. 2015 Mar;27(1):90-101
pubmed: 25346996
J Appl Psychol. 2002 Oct;87(5):819-32
pubmed: 12395807
J Occup Environ Med. 2016 Jan;58(1):16-23
pubmed: 26716844
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Feb 28;15(3):
pubmed: 29495632
J Occup Health Psychol. 2016 Jan;21(1):3-23
pubmed: 25894198
Psychol Rev. 2004 Oct;111(4):1061-71
pubmed: 15482073
Scand J Public Health. 2005;33(3):166-74
pubmed: 16040456
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 May 29;8:33
pubmed: 18510722
Am Psychol. 1993 Oct;48(10):1013-22
pubmed: 8256874
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2015 Sep;17(9):630
pubmed: 26238744
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2009 Aug;82(8):1005-13
pubmed: 19018554
Eur J Public Health. 2013 Aug;23(4):622-9
pubmed: 23002241

Auteurs

Magnus Johansson (M)

Department of Behavioural Science, Oslo Metropolitan University, P.O. Box 4, St. Olavs plass, NO-0130, Oslo, Norway. pgmj@pm.me.

Anthony Biglan (A)

Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH