| | | 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 |
-
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.