Development and Validation of the Foundational Healthcare Leadership Self-assessment

Abstract

Background and Objectives: We sought to develop and validate a self-assessment of foundational leadership skills for early-career physicians. Methods: We developed a leadership self-assessment from a compilation of materials on health care leadership skills. A sequential exploratory study was conducted using qualitative and quantitative analysis for face, content, and construct validity of the self-assessment. First, two focus groups were conducted with leaders in medicine and family medicine residents, to refine the pilot self-assessment. The self-assessment pilot was then tested with family medicine residents across the country, and the results were quantitatively evaluated with principal component analysis. This data was used to reduce and group the statements into leadership domains for the final self-assessment. Results: Twenty-two invited family medicine residency programs agreed to distribute the survey. A total of 163 family medicine residents completed the survey, representing 16 to 20 residency programs from 12 states (response rate 28.9% to 34.8%). Analysis showed important differences by residency year, with more advanced residents scoring higher. The analysis reduced the number of items from 33 on the pilot assessment to 21 on the final assessment, which the authors titled the Foundational Healthcare Leadership Self-assessment (FHLS). The 21 items were grouped into five leadership domains: accountability, collaboration, communication, team management, and self-management. Conclusions: The FHLS is a validated 21-item self-assessment of foundational leadership skills for early career physicians. It takes less than 5 minutes to complete, and quantifies skill within five domains of foundational leadership. The FHLS is a first step in developing educational and evaluative assessments for training medical residents as clinician leaders.

A new scale to assess health-facility level management: the development and validation of the facility management scale in Ghana, Uganda, and Malawi

“…Similarly, the Leadership Practices Inventory [ 21 ], while inclusive of an ‘Observer’ version that allows others to rate the leadership of others, is only available at a fee, thus limiting its accessibility within more resource-constrained contexts. The Foundational Healthcare Leadership Self-assessment (FHLS) [ 22 ]; the International Leadership Scale (ILS) [ 23 ]; Evidence-Based Practice Nursing Leadership Scale [ 24 ] have also all been used within health care settings. A common critique of common management and leadership scales, however, is that like the MLQ and LPI, they were developed based on a Western, individualistic perspective, which may or may not be appropriate to assess leadership across other cultural contexts.…”

Leadership Development in Graduate Medical Education: A Pilot Study of Implementation of a Validated Self-assessment Instrument

“…In a previous publication 29 we shared our validation of a formative self-assessment instrument for early-career physicians, specifically residents, called the Foundational Health-care Leadership Self-assessment (FHLS). The FHLS is a 21item self-assessment that generates scores on 5 foundational leadership domains: accountability, collaboration, communication, team management, and self-management (Appendix 1).…”

A new scale to assess health-facility level management: The development and validation of the Facility Management Scale in Ghana, Uganda, and Malawi

“…Similarly, the Leadership Practices Inventory [18], while inclusive of an 'Observer' version that allows others to rate the leadership of others, is only available at a fee, thus limiting its accessibility within more resource-constrained contexts. The Foundational Healthcare Leadership Self-assessment (FHLS) [19]; the International Leadership Scale (ILS) [20]; Evidence-Based Practice Nursing Leadership Scale [21] have also all been used within health care settings. A common critique of common management and leadership scales, however, is that like the MLQ and LPI, they were developed based on a Western, individualistic perspective, which may or may not be appropriate to assess leadership across other cultural contexts.…”