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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 of a Work Climate Scale in Emergency Health Services
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00010 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susana Sanduvete-Chaves, José A. Lozano-Lozano, Salvador Chacón-Moscoso, Francisco P. Holgado-Tello |
| Abstract |
An adequate work climate fosters productivity in organizations and increases employee satisfaction. Workers in emergency health services (EHS) have an extremely high degree of responsibility and consequent stress. Therefore, it is essential to foster a good work climate in this context. Despite this, scales with a full study of their psychometric properties (i.e., validity evidence based on test content, internal structure and relations to other variables, and reliability) are not available to measure work climate in EHS specifically. For this reason, our objective was to develop a scale to measure the quality of work climates in EHS. We carried out three studies. In Study 1, we used a mixed-method approach to identify the latent conceptual structure of the construct work climate. Thus, we integrated the results found in (a) a previous study, where a content analysis of seven in-depth interviews obtained from EHS professionals in two hospitals in Gibraltar Countryside County was carried out; and (b) the factor analysis of the responses given by 113 EHS professionals from these same centers to 18 items that measured the work climate in health organizations. As a result, we obtained 56 items grouped into four factors (work satisfaction, productivity/achievement of aims, interpersonal relationships, and performance at work). In Study 2, we presented validity evidence based on test content through experts' judgment. Fourteen experts from the methodology and health fields evaluated the representativeness, utility, and feasibility of each of the 56 items with respect to their factor (theoretical dimension). Forty items met the inclusion criterion, which was to obtain an Osterlind index value greater than or equal to 0.5 in the three aspects assessed. In Study 3, 201 EHS professionals from the same centers completed the resulting 40-item scale. This new instrument produced validity evidence based on the internal structure in a second-order factor model with four components (RMSEA = 0.079, GFI = 0.97, AGFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97; NFI = 0.95, and NNFI = 0.97); absence of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) in 80% of the items; reliability (α = 0.96); and validity evidence based on relations to other variables, specifically the test-criterion relationship (ρ = 0.680). Finally, we discuss further developments of the instrument and its possible implications for EHS workers. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Greece | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 30 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 15 | 19% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 11 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 15% |
| Unknown | 29 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#14,372,208
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,266
of 30,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,743
of 441,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#353
of 536 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 441,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 536 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.