Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Significance tests for the means of r WG(J) and AD M(J) for each vignette hospital (study three)

From: Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure

    Change commitment (CC) Change efficacy (CE)
      Simulation-based    Simulation-based
    Sample values Percentiles Sample values Percentiles
Vignette CC mean CE mean r WG(J) AD M(J) 0.95 r WG(J) 0.05 AD M(J) r WG(J) AD M(J) 0.95 r WG(J) 0.05 AD M(J)
Hospital 1 4.33 3.83 0.95 0.54 0.40 1.11 0.89 0.73 0.42 1.10
Hospital 2 3.21 2.33 0.83 0.85 0.42 1.10 0.89 0.69 0.44 1.09
Hospital 3 2.07 2.99 0.82 0.83 0.44 1.10 0.67 0.99 0.43 1.10
Hospital 4 2.07 2.14 0.86 0.71 0.42 1.10 0.83 0.78 0.42 1.10
  1. Note: Organizational readiness was manipulated in the vignettes as follows: Hospital 1 high commitment-high efficacy; Hospital 2 high commitment-low efficacy; Hospital 3 low commitment-high efficacy; and Hospital 4 low commitment-low efficacy. The hospital-level means for change commitment (CC) and change efficacy (CE) were consistent with the experimental manipulation. For all four hospitals, the sample values for r WG(J) exceeded the 95th percentile values of the empirical distributions derived from 100,000 simulated random samples. Likewise, for all four hospitals, the sample values for AD M(J) were smaller than the 5th percentile values of the empirical distributions derived from 100,000 simulated random samples. Therefore, for each hospital, we reject the null hypothesis of no agreement based on the uniform (rectangular) distribution.