Reliability and Validity of a Further Tested Appreciative Management Scale

Abstract

Background and PurposeManagers need evidence-based methods to evaluate their management skills. To further test the appreciative management scale (AMS 1.0) to create a practical instrument to be used in evaluating appreciative management.MethodsFor further testing, a new survey was conducted among social and healthcare managers (n = 734) in Finland. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the scale validity and Cronbach's alpha coefficients the internal consistency.ResultsThe validated AMS 2.0 scale includes 24 items. The values measuring validity and reliability were good, with an Rool Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.072, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values between 0.532 and 0.634, and Composite Reliability (CR) values ranging between 0.850 and 0.914. The Cronbach's alpha of the whole scale was 0.944.ConclusionsAMS 2.0 is a reliable and valid means to measure appreciative management as proved by confirmatory factor analysis.

Influencing mechanism of the use behavior of clinical practice guidelines on antimicrobials: evidence from the integration of theory of reasoned action and organizational readiness for change

“…Factor loading of each item, CR and AVE of each construct were calculated to assess the convergent validity. The results showed the value of these three indicators was above the recommended value of 0.6, 0.6 and 0.7, respectively [ 58 – 60 ], which meant the convergent validity was acceptable (Table 3 ). Additionally, following the suggestion of Fornel and Larcker (1981) [ 61 ], the discriminant validity was further tested by calculating the square root of AVE. As shown in Table 4 , the square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than its correlation coefficient with other constructs, except that the square root of the AVE for top management support was less than its correlation coefficient with organizational resource allocation, indicating that the discriminant validity was acceptable.…”

The association between appreciative management and work engagement among health‐ and social care professionals: A cross‐sectional study

“…A 5‐point Likert scale was used (1 = not at all , 2 = somewhat , 3 = I cannot say , 4 = a lot and 5 = very much ). The AMS 2.0 is a reliable measure, especially for evaluating the appreciative management of first‐line managers in healthcare and other work environments [33]. Permission to use the AMS 2.0 scale was obtained from the developer.…”

“…The distributions of the sum variables mainly followed a normal distribution. The average values of appreciative management were interpreted in such a way that an average of less than 3.00 is considered weak, 3.00–3.99 as average and 4.00–5.00 as good [33]. The average values of work engagement and different dimensions were interpreted in such a way that an average less than 1.44 is considered very low, 1.44–3.43 low, 3.44–4.53 moderate, 4.54–5.30 above average and more than 5.30 high [42].…”

“…This includes staff members' sense of belonging as well as supportive workplace characteristics and healthy workplaces, which have been found to make staff remain in their workplaces [32]. Supportive workplace characteristics are traits that can be found in appreciative management; these have been defined to be systematic management, equality, appreciating know-how and promotion of well-being at work [33].…”

“…Appreciating know-how means that the manager values the employees' professionalism and recognises their competence on a personal level, which enables the employees to develop their careers and cope with work autonomy. Promotion of well-being at work includes investing in the work atmosphere, occupational health and safety and good interaction [33]. The Appreciative Management Scale (AMS 2.0) was developed based on these categories.…”