Directors in substance use treatment programs are increasingly required to respond to external economic and socio-political pressures. Leadership practices that promote innovation can help offset these challenges. Using focus groups, factor analysis, and validation instruments, the current study developed and established psychometrics for the Survey of Transformational Leadership. In 2008, clinical directors were evaluated on leadership practices by 214 counselors within 57 programs in four U.S. Nine themes emerged: integrity, sensible risk, demonstrates innovation, encourages innovation, inspirational motivation, supports others, develops others, delegates tasks, and expects excellence. Study implications, limitations and suggested future directions are discussed. Funding from NIDA.
J., & Bass, B. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA Mindgarden.
Increasingly, organizations providing behavioral health services are required to change practices in response to external economic and socio-political pressures. The substance use treatment field, is plagued with high program closure rates , exogenous factors negatively affecting staff satisfaction and retention (e.g., rise in managed care; ), and decreased funding , all of which challenge clinical management. Furthermore, state and federal funding sources are mandating the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs). In response, program administrators are searching for and implementing new and alternative approaches to optimize resource utilization. To secure organizational health and viability, leaders must promote a culture of change that supports creativity and involves staff in decision-making.While some directors embrace and initiate change, welcoming opportunities to re-invent aspects of the organization, others may resist.
Often fixed norms and beliefs that conflict with new practices and the lack of training, skills, and motivation impedes the implementation of new interventions. Subsequently, interest in spotlighting director development and change management is growing within the US, as leadership training is being offered by national agencies to professional members of the substance use treatment community (e.g., ATTC Leadership Institute,; NIATx Executive Leadership Academy, ).Directors serve as visionaries and change agents, and are central in promoting organizational change (;; ). Transformational” leadership approaches have been successful in promoting change within a variety of organizations, and have important implications for substance use treatment programs. Importantly, transformational leadership can be taught and learned at all management levels within an organization (; ) and has positive effects within a variety of organizational settings. However, there are organizational contingencies that could affect the likelihood of transformational leadership within certain situations.
For instance, transformational leadership has more of an impact within environments that are unstable and that support goal progress with intrinsic rewards. Given the turbulent nature of the substance use field and the lack of opportunity for monetary compensation, transformational leadership has great potential to impact organizational improvement efforts within the treatment field.first conceptualized transformational leaders as those who mobilize their efforts to reform organizations, in part by raising followers’ consciousness beyond personal interests to be more in line with organizational goals and vision. Interactive and highly participatory encounters among all members of a team are key ingredients. Through these interactions, visions emerge, consensus is built, plans are discussed, and potential roadblocks are explored, increasing buy-in and accountability among team members.
Leaders influence the process by promoting intellectual stimulation, inspiring motivation, and taking each member’s needs into consideration.The impact that transformational leadership has on members of an organization can be best examined by comparing it to transactional leadership, where leaders “approach followers with an eye to exchanging one thing for another” (, p. 3), for instance exchanging work on a project for a raise in compensation. Instead, a transformational leader mobilizes their followers toward reform by an appeal to values and emotions. Hierarchy of needs serves as an analogy for the impact that these two leadership strategies can have on followers. Transactional leadership focuses on issues lower in Maslow’s hierarchy, such as concerns for personal security and exchange of work for compensation, whereas transformational leadership focuses more on self-actualization (i.e., a desire for the betterment of the team or organization).Thus transformational approaches to leadership have a wide range of potential benefits. At the organization level, transformational leadership practices can produce strategic organizational change.
Perceived transformational actions have also been shown to alter staff perceptions of EBPs in mental health service settings , increase staff satisfaction , reduce stress and burnout , and reduce turnover intentions (; ). While limited research has linked transformational leadership directly with client outcomes (such as treatment engagement) staff perceptions have implications for clients. For instance, lower staff burnout has been associated with higher counselor rapport ratings among clients within substance use treatment organizations.Currently there are a number of instruments available that measure transformational leadership (e.g., ). However, some important components (such as empowerment), are not routinely assessed. Additionally, most existing instruments include scales with only one or two marker items that reflect important themes within a core component. This approach works well when assessing a global construct of core transformational components, but is inadequate when examining components in greater detail for self-assessment and training purposes. Furthermore, the most commonly used and most comprehensive measures of transformational leadership (such as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; ) are available for a fee.
Consequently, there is a need for a non-commercial instrument that assesses fundamental components of transformational leadership strategies, and that can be used in treatment programs with limited resources.To date, there is little known about the practice of transformational leadership within substance use treatment organizations. Given the rapid changes occurring within the field, it has become clear that there is a need for leadership that will promote innovation, challenge the status quo, and empower followers to take on tasks and find creative solutions. While it is likely that administrators in some treatment programs utilize transformational approaches, it is also likely that many do not due to organizational and financial barriers. Yet these organizations have much to gain through transformational practices such as creative problem-solving and engaging/developing existing staff in the process. To advance the practice and process of transformational strategies in treatment organizations, a reliable and valid transformational leadership survey was developed for use free of charge.
Survey of Transformational Leadership (STL)The Survey of Transformational Leadership (STL) is a comprehensive assessment instrument that reflects approaches to the conceptualization and measurement of transformational practices. The STL examines five core components, four that are traditionally conceptualized as transformational domains (i.e., idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration), plus one that is measured less frequently (empowerment). Conceptual themes are examined within each of these five core components by considering specific leader practices included in a variety of other instruments. For instance, idealized influence includes themes of character, sensible risk-taking, ethical consideration, and idealization of leader. Including items that address each theme allows for differentiation between leaders based on the use of specific strategies.
Depicts the five core components and their corresponding conceptual themes. Idealized influenceEvidence suggests that having idealized influence evokes less stress and burnout within the workplace. A leader’s model character includes expression of self-determination , honesty, and openness , as well as sensible risk-taking when there is not a 100% likelihood of success (; ).
Researchers have also called for the inclusion of whether the leader emphasizes the importance of subordinates’ beliefs and acts consistently with them. The ability to gain the trust of followers, beyond their respect and pride, has been suggested as a feature of idealized influence (; ).
Intellectual stimulationCreating intellectual stimulation is another important core component of transformational leadership. Emphasize the importance of encouraging followers to challenge their own traditional ways of completing tasks by trying new things and including staff in the process of finding and sharing solutions to common issues. Showing environmental sensitivity by evaluating the environment opportunities within and outside of the organization , is also considered important in stimulating new ideas. Furthermore, maintaining the status quo by discouraging creative thinking is more likely to disempower and stress staff. Inspirational motivationOne of the most salient characteristics of transformational leaders is their ability to establish a vision which offers followers meaning and challenge to their individual organizational tasks.
Preparing followers for change and expressing optimism, enthusiasm, and confidence in reaching the vision are a necessary part of promoting a vision and attaining desired goals (; ). Most successful visions are clear, strategically planned, and feasible – stimulating a common purpose, raising self-esteem in followers, and allowing them to more readily participate in their pursuit (;; ). Transformational leadership also involves organizational members in the process of developing and pursuing shared visions – which are not only more successful , but also result in fewer reports of employee intentions to leave the job , more commitment to the leader , and enhancements in group performance. Transformational leaders can show their own commitment, and compel followers to embrace a vision by actively modeling the values that underlie the mission and by building support for the organizational goals from outside sources. EmpowermentWhile empowering practices that help link followers’ decisions to their self-concept (e.g., ) are viewed by some as part of transformational leadership, it is not consistently included in common conceptualizations and assessments. In an effort to conceptualize transformational leadership as both participatory and directive, excluded empowerment as a core component.
Contends that empowering practices including consulting, delegating, and sharing of pertinent information help link decisions to followers’ self worth thus creating an ownership of common goals. Leaders that empower followers intentionally delegate tasks that are important and meaningful (;; ), and that enhance learning to facilitate growth within the organization. They set high performance expectations for their followers and display confidence that followers can perform and complete tasks. Additionally, an empowering leader shares power with and conveys support to followers.
Once achieved, empowerment helps to promote positive organizational outcomes, including higher innovation, organizational learning, and less turnover. MethodIn order to establish the validity and reliability of the STL, two field studies were conducted: (1) a qualitative appraisal (i.e., focus groups) to refine the instrument and (2) a quantitative evaluation designed to examine the psychometric properties both as separate components (i.e., first-order factors) and as a global measure of transformational leadership (i.e., second-order factor). All participation in the studies was voluntary and the research protocols were approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Study 1: Focus Group EvaluationFocus groups were conducted to evaluate item wording and utility of the STL for use in substance use programs. Three focus groups were held which included counselors and directors from two Gulf Coast agencies within outpatient substance use treatment.
Counseling staff and directors were kept separate to ensure confidentiality of comments.Participants received information on study aims and confidentiality. Staff members and directors provided (1) feedback on the utility of the STL, (2) information on which job positions (i.e., program versus clinical director) generally perform the leadership functions addressed in the survey, (3) suggestions for clarifying survey item wording, and (4) identification of additional leader behaviors that should be added to the survey.The focus group members recommended designating the clinical director (i.e., the individual with direct supervision of counselors) as the primary person to be rated rather than the program director.
There was consensus that program directors were more often responsible for operations management than for clinical supervision. However, some program directors serve in multiple roles, including clinical director. Fourteen items were identified as needing potential revision, most involving minor wording changes. Four items included the term “risk,” based on common terminology found in transformational leadership literature (e.g., ). However, the term “risk” could be perceived within the treatment field as having negative connotations, alluding to ethical violations and “risky” behavior associated with substance use.
Subsequently, these four items were changed to state either “appropriate risk” or “personal chances.” Participants also suggested adding items reflecting: modeling appropriate behaviors and including staff in developing implementation plans for new program practices. The general consensus among administrators and staff reflected a need to assess and promote improvement of leadership practices within the field and that the STL would be a good tool to meet these requirements.
ParticipantsCounselors with direct client contact were surveyed from outpatient substance use treatment programs currently involved in the Treatment Costs and Organizational Monitoring (TCOM; see ) project. Programs were located in four geographic regions of the United States including the Northwest, the Gulf Coast, the Southeast, and the Great Lakes.Eighty-seven programs were contacted and asked to participate. Sixteen (18%) chose not to participate due to previous commitments or recent staffing changes. Of the 71 remaining programs, data from four were consolidated with sibling programs within their same parent organization, due to an overlap in staff and leadership responsibilities between sites. An additional 10 programs (11%), although agreeing to participate initially, were unable to allocate time for staff to complete surveys. Therefore, a total of 57 programs participated in the current study, accounting for 70% of the eligible programs.In total, 213 staff and 57 leaders were represented in the current study, representing a 62% and 86% response rate for staff and leaders respectively. Of the participating staff most were female, Caucasian, college educated, and served a minimum of 3 years within the field and at least one year in their current position.
Staff and leaders averaged 39 and 48 years of age, respectively. A majority of the staff perceived themselves to be at a lower rank than their leader and their leader to be upper management (see ).
A majority (53%) of the leaders were rated by staff employed in treatment settings that offered a mixture of regular and intensive outpatient services. Eighty-seven percent operated as part of a larger “parent” organization (e.g., a central administrative unit maintaining several facilities in the community) and had an average staff size of approximately 7 counselors. A typical program served on average 53% ( SD =.34%) criminal justice-referred clients, 22% ( SD = 25%) comorbid or “dual diagnosis” clients and 38% ( SD = 20%) female clients.
ProcedureProgram primary contacts were reached via email and given information regarding the study aims, data collection procedures, and incentives (described below). Once an organization agreed to participate and the number of staff members with direct client contact was determined, the corresponding number of survey packets was mailed to the facility. The packet contained a consent form, a program-specific cover letter, the leadership questionnaire (average completion time of 30 minutes), and a postage-paid envelope to return the completed survey. Owing to variation in job titles between organizations and based on focus group feedback, instead of asking participants to rate their clinical director, program contacts were asked to identify by title, the position that has “direct supervision of clinicians/counselors.” This program-specific job title was printed on the staff questionnaire cover letter. Clinical directors were also asked to complete the packet, but only their background information was used in the present study.
Each participant who completed the packet was entered into a raffle for a chance to win one of four $25 or one of two $50 gift certificates awarded by region. MeasuresAn assessment battery consisting of the Survey of Transformational Leadership (STL), as well as selected items from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Attributes of Leader Behavior Questionnaire (ALBQ), and Survey of Organizational Functioning (SOF) were used to develop and validate the new transformational leadership tool. In completing the STL, MLQ, and ALBQ, staff members responded to a 5-point rating scale with the stem stating, “The person I am rating” performs a certain leadership practice ranging from “not at all” (0) to “frequently, if not always” (4). Items phrased in the negative were reverse coded for analysis. Following factor analyses, composite measures for each theme were created by taking the average score for the items within each theme.
Scale scores were then multiplied by 10, and ranged from 0 to 40 to allow for ease in clinical feedback or interpretation of leadership ratings. A list of instruments and scales is provided in. The STL included 84 items representing five core components that were further subdivided into 16 conceptual themes (see for proposed conceptual themes). The current assessment battery also included four scales from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X; ) that corresponded with measures of transformational leadership.
Reliability coefficients with this sample ranged from.92 to.88 and were consistent with. Two scales from the Attributes of Leader Behavior Questionnaire (ALBQ; ) were also included.
Reliability coefficients with this sample were.94 and.89, and were consistent with.Clinical staff completed the job satisfaction scale from the Survey of Organizational Functioning (SOF; Broome, Knight, Edwards, & Flynn, in press). Ratings for these six items (e.g., “you like the people you work with” and “you are satisfied with your present job”) were made using a 1 to 5 response scale; 1 indicated “strongly disagree” and 5 indicated “strongly agree.” Scale scores were multiplied by 10, and ranged from 10 to 50.
A dichotomous variable based on the median-split was developed for job satisfaction, in order to examine the mean difference of leadership ratings on high or low job satisfaction. The Cronbach alpha for this sample was.82. Statistical AnalysisThe STL was evaluated in two stages: first-order analysis on the STL core components and second-order analysis on transformational leadership, as a whole. The factor structure of each first-order and second-order factor was determined in two phases: (1) principal components analysis (PCA) to help establish the number of components extracted from the data and (2) maximum likelihood (ML) factor analysis procedures to provide a better estimate of the parameters.
In the PCA, the most suitable solution for number of components extracted was based on (1) the Kaiser Criterion: requiring an eigenvalue greater than 1.00 and (2) interpretability with regard to transformational leadership theory. In the ML procedures, the resulting factor matrices were rotated, which helped make the factors as distinctive as possible. Because the chi-square test is sensitive to sample size (especially over 200;; ), the current study relied upon the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI; ) as the primary index of model fit. TLI values close to one support that the factor structure accounts for the sample variance and covariance. An item was retained in the factor when (1) the confidence interval for the item covered a region of values larger than the specified criterion value (i.e.,.4; ) and (2) the item was consistent with the conceptual meaning of the high loading items on the specified factor.The second-order factor loadings were estimated based on composite scores corresponding to each of the first-order factors. Following the factor analyses, tests of reliability (i.e., coefficient alpha), convergent validity (i.e., correlations with matching scales), and criterion-related validity (i.e., t-tests on relationship to job satisfaction) were examined for each of the measures developed.
First-Order Analysis of STL Core ComponentsSeparate exploratory factor analyses were conducted within each of the five first-order conceptual core components. The decision to assess the 84 STL items by core component was based on the suggestion that for parameter estimation the sample be five times the number of items.In total, the five factor analyses resulted in nine first-order leadership factors: a single component for inspirational motivation and a two component structure for the other four components. Based on a confidence interval of.4 and item-factor meaningfulness, all items, except one from the intellectual stimulation core component, were retained in the development of the first-order factors. The factor loadings as determined by maximum likelihood factor analysis are presented in. The questionnaire items listed by core component and theme are shown in the. DimensionalityThe overall pattern of results for each core component is illustrated in with a listing of observed empirical themes accounted for by proposed conceptual themes. ThemeFactor LoadingMSD.
Sensible Risk.83826.619.88.737.893. Encourages Innovation.94229.498.95.889.765.924. Demonstrates Innovation.79526.117.83.629.820.743.865. Inspirational Motivation.95628.888.53.848.831.884.830.976. Develops Others.94428.479.21.853.762.887.723.886. Supports Others.73632.598.83.809.577.754.418.647.685.788.
Task Delegation.97528.088.65.864.806.912.755.934.401.627.899. Expects Excellence.66833.227.42.630.552.611.584.660.692.924.637.95. Convergent and criterion-related validityCronbach alphas for the validation factors ranged between.94 and.88. In order to examine convergent validity, the STL theme scores were compared to the MLQ or ALBQ component they were conceptually developed to represent. Contains the correlations between the STL and matching MLQ or ALBQ scales, along with descriptive statistics for the validation measures.
In all cases the correlation between the STL theme and corresponding validation component was equal to or greater than.5. MLQ ScalesALBQ ScalesIdealized InfluenceIntellectual StimulationInspirational MotivationIndividualized ConsiderationOpportunities for SuccessAssures CompetencyCronbach α.90.89.92.88.89.94M (SD)29.51 (8.37)27.26 (9.16)30.18 (9.23)27.69 (10.6)29.39 (9.78)28.7 (10.9)STL ThemeIntegrity.862-Sensible Risk.831-Encourages Innovation-.864-Demonstrates Innovation-.783-Inspirational Motivation-.882-Develops Others-.874-Supports Others-.741-Task Delegation-.862-Expects Excellence-.496. Note: All correlations significant at.001 level.In order to evaluate criterion-related validity (whether the STL themes served as effective indicators of job satisfaction ratings), a dichotomous variable based on the median-split was developed for job satisfaction ( M = 38.24, SD = 6.39). Presents the t-statistic values, along with descriptive statistics for job satisfaction.
A series of t-tests revealed that the ratings of each STL theme significantly differed between low and high job satisfaction. Most notable was the association between Task Delegation and job satisfaction (low = 24.05, high = 31.28), with a difference of 7.23. Second-Order Analysis of Transformational LeadershipComposite scores for each of the nine first-order factors were used as the basis for component (eigenvalue = 7.00), termed Transformational Leadership. Maximum likelihood factor analysis was used to estimate the second-order factor loadings. The total variance accounted for by the nine first-order factors was 57% (TLI =.87). The factor loadings suggested that the single component relates most strongly to the Task Delegation (.98) factor and least to the Expects Excellence factor (.67). Intercorrelations among the first-order factors were consistently high , suggesting their commonalities and supporting the notion that the STL can be used as a global measure of transformational leadership.
Scores on the single second-order factor had a possible range of 0 to 40 with an average score of 29.55 and a standard deviation of 7.54. The alpha coefficient for the single second-order factor was quite high at.96. The correlation between the STL second-order factor and the global measure of the MLQ was.95, showing good convergent validity between the two global measures of leadership. The STL second-order factor also demonstrates good criterion-related validity as evidenced by a statistically significant difference between low ( M = 26.27) and high ( M = 32.15) job satisfaction ( t(211) = −6.12, p. Discussionreport variability in leadership ratings within outpatient substance use treatment which suggests unevenness in the training and resources directors receive for their role as program leaders.
“With greater attention to selecting, developing, and rewarding leadership, the substance abuse treatment field can take better advantage of a valuable human resource” (p. 169).The aim of the current study was to develop a non-commercial instrument for assessing transformational leadership within substance use treatment organizations that is available free of charge, reliable, valid, and that can be used to inform organizational self-monitoring and training efforts. The Survey of Transformational Leadership (STL) utilizes a thorough and comprehensive approach, eliciting detailed information about specific leadership behaviors. Results suggest that within the five core components (i.e., idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and empowerment) nine distinct themes emerge, representing various facets of transformational-oriented practices (see for observed empirical themes). While the number of themes was fewer than expected, the STL allows for sufficient item-level detail to examine subtle distinctions between various themes within a core component. The one exception is inspirational motivation. IntegrityIN1.shows determination on the job.IN10.does not display honesty.
Background: Outstanding leadership is one of the important and vital concepts in management andeducational leadership debates especially in educational organizations such as universities. Thus,effective educational leadership and adopting an appropriate tool to assess leadership in educationare crucial in these institutions. The present study was conducted to develop an instrument for measuringthe leadership style in faculty members.Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, content and face validity of Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ) was examined using the opinions of 10 experienced faculty members as apanel of experts. For construct validity, 210 questionnaires were administered to faculty members ofTehran University of Medical Sciences.
Confirmatory factor analysis was run using principal componentanalysis and Varimax rotation method. The reliability of the scale was measured through internalconsistency using Cronbach’s alpha formula. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examinethe construct validity of the questionnaire. Data were analyzed using SPSS v.16 and LISRELsoftware.Results: Factor analysis and expert opinion resulted in a questionnaire with 18 items across six subscalesincluding idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualizedconsideration, contingent reward, and management by exception. The reliability coefficient of thequestionnaire was acceptable (0.90). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the scale had appropriategoodness of fit.Conclusion: The 18-item Educational Leadership Questionnaire was found to have acceptable validityand reliability for measuring leadership style in the faculty. It is recommended that the questionnairebe administered to a larger sample.
IntroductionLeadership concept goes back to 5000 years ago to Egyptian hieroglyphics in which the words (sehemu) “leader” and (seshement) “leadership” are used.This was the assumption behind ‘The Great Man Theory’. The human relations approach to leadership, which was developed after Mayo’s studies, views leadership as an interactional phenomenon depending on the interrelation of the group members pursuing common goals of the organization.
Hence, with a humanistic perspective, leadership is defined in terms of status, interaction, perceptions, and behavior of individuals in relation to other members within an organized group.Since the dawn of the twenty-first century, marked attention has been paid to educational leadership so much as it has been considered as the key factor in organizational success or failure. Once educational institutions wish to provide the best-quality education for their leaners, they need to apply effective leadership. Leadership is thought to contribute to organizational effectiveness as much as 45-50 percent.There is a great and widespread interest in educational leadership and management, a trend that has been accelerating in the twenty-first century. The widely accepted opinion that effective leadership is essential for successful schooling is increasingly being supported by document of its beneficial effects. Leadership is now recognized to be the second most significant factor influencing school and pupil outcomes, after classroom practice. Schools often succeed because of the skill and commitment of their principals and chief teams.According to Stogdill and Arnold, leadership is a complicated concept bearing as many definitions as the number of researchers that have addressed it. This may be why precise definition of the concept is particularly important in non-humanities disciplines such as medicine and especially medical education.
Leadership in educational institutions such as schools, universities and higher education institutions is not bound to a single individual. Rather, leadership in such organizations is an approach to consolidating all skills for promoting learning. As the educational leader, a head teacher headmaster only facilitates the conditions for learning. Test DevelopmentThe study adopted a descriptive method and a cross-sectional approach. Following extensive consultation with experts and comprehensive review of the related literature, the original version of the questionnaire was selected to be used in the study.
A query was sent to the developers of the questionnaire on the use of the email version of the scale. The developers agreed with the application of the email version. The research instrument was MLQ-S6 comprising 21 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale including not at all, once in a while, sometimes, fairly often, and frequently if not always.
The score for every item ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (frequently if not always). The questionnaire was translated and culturally adapted into Farsi according to the method proposed by Wild and colleagues in the following steps. In the first stage of forward translation, the scale was translated by two expert translators who were faculty members.
One of the translators had a PhD in English, and another one had a PhD in healthcare education. They both were experienced in translating specialized texts and were familiar with the concepts addressed in the scale. In the second stage, the two translations were integrated into a single translation for the reconciliation of forward translation. In the third stage, the final translated version was back-translated into English by two faculty members who were fluent in both Farsi and English.
One of the translators had studied management, and another one, the English. In the fourth stage, the back translated versions were reviewed. In the fifth stage, the questionnaire was administered to a few participants in a pilot study in order to examine its wording, scoring, and rating of statements and its components were amended. In the sixth stage of finalization and proofreading, modifications were made in the scales, and their final version was prepared for psychometrics. In the seventh stage, the psychometric properties of the scale were determined including content, face and construct validity.Content Validity Ratio (CVR) was used to ensure that the scale contains the most important and most accurate content. Content validity index (CVI) was used to ensure that the questionnaire items are best developed to measure the content.
The opinions of 10 faculty members of Tehran University of Medical Sciences were sought to examine the face and content validity of the scale using CVR and CVI methods both qualitatively and quantitatively. Of the faculty members, 5 people had studied management or passed management courses and 5 had studied educational sciences or other disciplines. They were considered as the panel of experts who were specialized in developing and administering research instruments related to the topic of the study. The content validity of all items was obtained by averaging the CVR values.
The content validity index was measured in terms of four criteria: relevance, clarity, importance, and simplicity. The relevance criterion was examined at four levels: irrelevant (with a score of 1), relevant but requiring serious adjustments (with a score of 2), relevant but requiring partial adjustments (with a score of 3), and completely relevant (with a score of 4). Based on the expert opinion, items with a CVI above 79% were considered as proper statements while items with a CVI of 70-79 were regarded as the items requiring modification. The items with a CVI of less than 70% were eliminated from the scale.Difficulty, irrelevancy and ambiguity were studied in the questionnaire to examine and correct its face validity. The faculty expressed their opinions about editing and adjusting the items consistent with Iranian culture.
In the next stage, item impact method was used to eliminate inappropriate items and determine item importance. Since factor analysis depends on the sample size that is 10-15 subjects per variable, 10 respondents were selected per variable to measure the construct validity. With regard to the minimum sample size in factor analysis, different sources suggest a minimum of 1 to 5 ratio for the proportion of variable to subject. Thus, the present sample size is more than enough considering the number of items used in exploratory factor analysis. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy suggests that a KMO value of 0.6 and above is indicative of the adequacy of sample.Since there were 21 items on the questionnaire, the sample size was considered to be n= 210. In order to avoid sample attrition, 40 individuals were added to the sample size. Therefore, a number of 250 questionnaires were administered to the faculty.
The number of respondents was computed using stratified-random sampling consistent with the number of faculty members in each college. In this regard, Tehran University of Medical Sciences was divided into 12 strata including all colleges and research centers. Of every stratum, a number of five groups were selected randomly. Subsequently, all groups were divided into two strata of male and female. All colleges were listed separately. Eventually, the sample size was computed to be 250 consistent with the number of professors at college strata and gender. Every college was selected as a cluster using the random number table.Of the administered questionnaires, the faculty members of Tehran University of Medical Sciences returned 210 ones.
For ethical purposes, the respondents were informed of the research objectives and confidentiality of the data before the sampling stage. Subsequently, the completed questionnaires were collected, and the data were entered into the software. Data analysisPrincipal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal rotation method (Varimax) were run to conduct exploratory analysis of the model. Factor loading was considered to be above 0.3 in the factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was run to examine construct validity. Factor analysis is done to reduce large number of variables into a limited number of factors with minimum data attrition.
Confirmatory factor analysis was used through maximum likelihood estimation to examine the structural validity of the scale. In other words, confirmatory factor analysis revealed whether or not the questionnaire items were assigned to and fit the relevant factors as theoretically expected.
The analysis was done using LISREL software. The models were analyzed using 7 indices including goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fit index (IFI), chi-square goodness of fit index (X 2), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), root mean square residual (PMR), and adjusted goodness of fit (AGFI).The reliability of the questionnaire was estimated through internal consistently method using Cronbach’s alpha formula. The analysis was performed using LISREL and SPSS software. Two raters observed and rated the on-field performance of managers.
The correlation coefficient of their observations was ICC=0.88. Internal consistency of the scale and its subscales was computed using Cronbach’s alpha formula. All coefficients were acceptable except for the factor 7. The inter-rater reliability of the scale was calculated to be ICC=0.90.Step 4: Based on the exploratory factor analysis performed in the previous step, the scale was examined using confirmatory factor analysis. Model fit indices were examined in the LISREL software, and the results are illustrated in.
GFI: Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI: Adjust Goodness of Fit Index, CFI: Comparative Fit Index, NFI: Normed Fit Index, IFI: Incremental Fit Index, PMR: Root Mean Square Residual, χ2: Chi-square goodness of fit Index, RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of ApproximationBased on the results of model fit illustrated in and the following diagram along with factor loading and PMR in, the results supported the good fit of the model. The final results confirmed the validity and reliability of the 6-factor educational leadership tool. DiscussionThe results of validating Bass and Avolio’s MLQ through a 7-factor model with confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis techniques, percentage of the explained variance and model fit index showed acceptable validity and reliability. As discussed above, the study aimed to develop a valid and reliable model of an instrument to be used for measuring leadership styles in universities. To develop such a model, an appropriate instrument is required which could precisely measure the range and nature of leadership styles in educational institutions.
Considering the importance of leadership style in teaching, learning and academic achievement, it is necessary to develop a valid and reliable instrument for such measurement. Various instruments have been developed to measure leadership styles based on the research objectives. ConclusionThe results showed that MLQ had acceptable reliability and validity in faculty members of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Thus, researchers can use the scale as a valid instrument in measuring leadership styles. It, however, should be noted that the present sample were faculty members of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Thus, care should be taken in generalizing the results to other universities or higher education institutions.
It is recommended that the scale be validated in other provinces and universities as well.