Skip to main content
. 2018 Dec 19;6(2):245–259. doi: 10.1002/nop2.231

Table 1.

Study instruments

Variable Instrument Items Range α Validity
Antecedents
Situational variables
Authentic leadership Authentic leadership questionnaire (Walumbwa et al., 2008) 16 0–4 0.96 Validity of the ALQ has been supported by a number of studies (see Roof, 2014; for a review)
Transparency 4 0–4 0.87
Ethical/Moral 4 0–4 0.87
Balanced processing 4 0–4 0.84
Self‐awareness 4 0–4 0.92
Structural empowerment Conditions for work effectiveness questionnaire‐II (Laschinger et al. 2001) 12 4–20 0.85 Confirmatory factor analyses for the CWEQ‐II has supported the validity of this instrument (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian & Wilk, 2001)
Opportunity 3 1–5 0.85
Support 3 1–5 0.83
Information 3 1–5 0.84
Resources 3 1–5 0.83
Person‐job fit Areas of work–life scale (AWS; Leiter & Maslach, 2004) 20 1–5 0.81 The AWS has demonstrated a consistent factor structure across samples, supporting its construct validity (Leiter & Maslach, 2004, Leiter, Gascon, & Marinez‐Jarreta, 2010)
Workload 3 1–5 0.69
Control 5 1–5 0.52
Reward 3 1–5 0.77
Community 3 1–5 0.72
Fairness 3 1–5 0.41
Values 3 1–5 0.76
New graduate nurse support The casey‐fink graduate nurse experience survey: supportive environment (Casey et al., 2004) 9 1–4 0.86 Content and criterion validity of this instrument was supported in the initial study (Casey et al., 2004).
Personal variables
Occupational coping self‐efficacy Occupational coping self‐efficacy for nurses (OCSE‐N; Pisanti et al., 2008) 9 1–5 0.84 EFA and CFA demonstrated support for the construct validity of this instrument. Criterion validity was also supported (Pisanti et al., 2008)
Psychological capital Psychological capital questionnaire (Luthans et al., 2007) 12 1–6 0.88 The construct validity of this instrument has been supported by CFA. Convergent validity and discriminant validity have also been supported (Luthans et al., 2007)
Hope 4 1–6 0.82
Resiliency 3 1–6 0.74
Optimism 2 1–6 0.72
Resiliency 3 1–6 0.81
Work outcomes
Workplace relationships
Incivility Straightforward workplace incivility scale (Leiter & Day, 2013) CFA showed that a 3‐factor structure yields a better fit than a one‐factor structure, supporting the construct validity of the scale (Portoghese, Galletta, Leiter, & Campagna, 2015)
Supervisor Incivility 5 0–6 0.90
Co‐Worker Incivility 5 0–6 0.91
Physician   Incivility 5 0–6 0.91
Work stressors
Burnout The maslach burnout inventory (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996) CFA supported the 3‐factor structure of the MBI (Maslach et al., 1996). The MBI is a well‐established questionnaire that has been used in numerous studies and has consistently demonstrated convergent, discriminant and criterion validity. Note that we only used two of the three subscales in this study
Emotional exhaustion 5 0–6 0.93
Cynicism 5 0–6 0.91
Work interference with personal life Work interference with personal life (Hayman, 2005) 7 1–7 0.92 CFA has supported the construct validity of this instrument (Hayman, 2005)
Health outcomes
Self‐rated Health The SF‐36 General Survey (Ware, Kosinski, Dewey, & Gandek, 2000) 1 1–4 The SF‐36 is a well‐established health questionnaire that has demonstrated strong construct validity using CFA in countries worldwide (Keller et al., 1998)
Mental health General health questionnaire‐12 (Goldberg & Williams, 1988) 12 1–4 0.83 The construct validity of the GHQ‐12 has been demonstrated (Goldberg & Williams, 1988). This questionnaire has also demonstrated criterion validity (Lundin, Hallgren, Theobald, Hellgren, & Torgén, 2016)
PTSD risk Primary Care Post‐Traumatic Stress Disorder Screen (PC‐PTSD; Prins et al., 2003) 6 0–1 The PC‐PTSD has demonstrated high construct and criterion validity and has been shown to better predict PTSD than other screening tools for PTSD (Prins et al., 2003)

All scales are scored such that higher scores represent higher levels of the variable being measured with the exception of mental health symptoms where higher scores represent lower levels of mental health symptoms.