Skip to main content

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.