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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 21% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 21% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 24 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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
#15,018,000
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,131
of 8,750 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,879
of 312,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#56
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,750 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 312,969 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.