Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Development and validity of the compassionate leadership skills and self efficacy scale (cl-ses)

Development and validity of the compassionate leadership skills and self efficacy scale (cl-ses)  9th International Congress of Coaching Psychology 2019

  • Login to see the comments

Development and validity of the compassionate leadership skills and self efficacy scale (cl-ses)

  1. 1. Development and validity of the Compassionate Leadership Skills and Self-efficacy Scale (CL-SES) YOGA TOKUYOSHI 9th International Congress of Coaching Psychology 2019
  2. 2. Objective The purpose of the present study was to develop the Compassionate Leadership Skills and Self-efficacy Scale (CL-SES) and to examine its reliability and validity using a classical test theory, an item response theory and a correlation analysis.
  3. 3. The CL-SES (Total 12 items) has 4 subscales; leadership of compassion and encourage skills The CL-SES (Total 12 items) has 4 subscales; ①Compassionate Leader Skills (3 items), ②Encourage Leader skills (3 items), ③Support for Acceptances (3 items), ④Support for Criticisms (3 items). The CL-SES was developed using examples from the Compassion approach based on Compassion focused therapy, Mindfulness theories and Positive Psychology. 【Development of Scale】
  4. 4. Parallel Analysis Scree Plot ◆Parallel Analysis Scree Plot(1.0) Parallel analysis suggests that the number of factors = 4 The number of components = 2 This test was selected 4 factors.
  5. 5. The Compassionate Leadership Skills and Self-efficacy Scale (CL-SES) Compassion Leadership Skills (CL) Q01: I can kindly care team members, when they had difficult experiences. Q02: I can kindly care team members, when they had painful emotions. Q03: I can forgive and take care team members when they failed. Encourage Leadership Skills (EL) Q04: I can encourage team members, when they had bitter experiences. Q05: I can encourage team members, when they had painful emotions. Q06: I can encourage team members not to make the same mistake in other situations when they failed. Support for Acceptance (SA) Q07: I can support team members to accept the experiences as they are, when they had bitter ones. Q08: I can support team members to accept the emotions as they are, when they had painful ones. Q09: I can support team members to accept the failure as it is, when they failed. Support for Criticisms (SC) Q10: I can support team members not to criticize more than necessary, when they were upset by suffering hardships. Q11: I can support team members not to criticize them more than necessary, when things went wrong. Q12: I can support team members not to criticize them more than necessary when they failed.
  6. 6. Factor Name Item SA SC ELC CLS Compassionate Leadership Skills (CLS) CL01 0 .01 -.03 .98 CL02 .02 -.02 .04 .91 CL03 .03 .29 .15 .45 Encourage Leadership Skills (ELC) CL04 -.02 .01 .93 .02 CL05 -.01 -.01 .97 0 CL06 .23 .08 .58 .01 Support for Acceptance (SA) CL07 .85 -.01 .02 .02 CL08 .93 -.03 -.01 .01 CL09 .88 .05 0 -.01 Support for Criticisms (SC) CL10 -.04 .84 .03 0 CL11 .03 .84 .01 -.01 CL12 .01 .91 -.03 .02 Exploratory factor analysis
  7. 7. •CFI=.968,TLI=.956 RMSEA=.088 N= 1549 F4: Support from criticisms F1: Compassion leader Skills F2: Encourage leader Skills F3:Support for Acceptance Confirmatory factor analysis (Maximum likelihood)
  8. 8. ■Item Cluster Analysis Cluster fit = 0.94 Pattern fit = 0.97 RMSR = 0.11 Item by Cluster Structure matrix Item CL CL01 .82 CL02 .83 CL03 .80 CL04 .83 CL05 .83 CL06 .78 CL07 .75 CL08 .75 CL09 .77 CL10 .68 CL11 .71 CL12 .73
  9. 9. Results Factor M SD α Ht Compassionate Leadership Skills (CLS) 12.1 2.7 .92 .80 Encourage Leadership Skills (EL) 11.4 2.9 .92 .82 Support for Acceptance (SA) 10.9 2.9 .92 .82 Support for Criticisms (SC) 11.9 2.6 .90 .78 Study1 Web Survey,Subject: N= 1549 Mean age= 28, SD=10 (Man:667名,Woman:882名)
  10. 10. ◆Gender difference(t-test,Cohen’s d)1 Compassionate Leadership Skills Woman: N= 882, M= 12.4(SD=2.5) Man: N = 667, M= 11.7(SD=2.9) t = 4.744, df = 1547, p = 0.000, Cohen‘s d : 0.243 (Small) There are gender differences in this scale. Encourage Leadership Skills Woman: N = 882, M= 11.8(SD = 2.7) Man: N = 667, M = 11.0(SD= 3.1) t = 5.213, df = 1547, p = 0.000 Cohen‘s d : 0.267(Small)
  11. 11. ◆Gender difference(t-test,Cohen’s d)2 Support for Acceptance Woman: N= 882, M= 11.1(SD=2.7) Man: N = 667, M= 10.6(SD=3.1) t = 3.058, df = 1547, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d : 0.157 (Small) There are gender differences in this scale. Support for Criticisms Woman: N = 882, M=12.1(SD = 2.6) Man: N = 667, M = 11.8(SD= 2.7) t = 2.290, df = 1547, p = 0.02, Cohen‘s d : 0.118(Small)
  12. 12. Team psychological safety (Edmondson,1999) It was analyzed in the CL-SES by adding a simple evaluation question item. ①If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you. ②Members of this team are able to bring up problems and tough issues. ③People on this team sometimes reject others for being different. ④It is safe to take a risk on this team. ⑤It is difficult ask other members of this team for help. ⑥ No one on this team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts. ⑦Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized. Edmondson,A(1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 350-383 12
  13. 13. Correlation analysis All ***p<.001 Team Psychological Safety Compassionate Leadership Skills (CLS) .33 Encourage Leadership Skills (EL) .39 Support for Acceptance (SA) .30 Support for Criticisms (SC) .32 13 N= 1549 Team Psychological Safety
  14. 14. Big5 Personality Test The Big Five personality traits, also known as the five-factor model (FFM) and the OCEAN model, is a taxonomy for personality traits. 14 ①Openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious) ②Conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless) ③Extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved) ④Agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. challenging/detached) ⑤Neuroticism or Emotional instability (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident) Rothmann S, Coetzer EP (24 October 2003). "The big five personality dimensions and job performance". SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. 29. doi:10.4102/sajip.v29i1.88.
  15. 15. CL-SES and Big 5 Personality Extroversion Emotional instability Conscient iousness Agreea bleness Openness Compassionate Leadership Skills (CLS) .39 .23 .26 .45 .32 Encourage Leadership Skills (EL) .45 .25 .32 .45 .37 Support for Acceptance (SA) .35 .27 .26 .36 .34 Support for Criticisms (SC) .25 .31 .20 .31 .2915 All ***p<.001N= 1549 Correlation analysis
  16. 16. The Crisis Leader Efficacy in Assessing and Deciding (C-LEAD) scale, to further research on this important topic. C-LEAD captures the self-efficacy of an individual to perform two critical crisis leader behaviors, assessing information and making decisions, in the face of the ambiguity, high stakes, and urgency present in crises. 1 factor, 9-items The Crisis Leader Efficacy in Assessing and Deciding (C-LEAD) scale (Hadly et al.,, 2011) Hadley, C.N., Pittinsky, T. L., Sommer, S. A., & Zhu, W. (2011) Measuring the efficacy of leaders to assess in-formation and make decisions in a crisis: The C-LEAD Scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 633-648.
  17. 17. The Crisis Leader Efficacy in Assessing and Deciding(C-LEAD)Scale Japanese Version C-LEAD-J Compassionate Leadership Skills (CLS) .25 Encourage Leadership Skills (EL) .38 Support for Acceptance (SA) .36 Support for Criticisms (SC) .25 N=8398 All ***p<.001 Correlation analysis
  18. 18. Brief Resilience Scale(BRS)(Smith, et al., 2008) •Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a self-rating questionnaire aimed at measuring an individuals’ ability to “bounce back from stress” (Smith et al., 2008). 【Item sample】 ※Q01 : I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times ※Q03: It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event. ※Q05: I usually come through difficult times with little trouble. Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral medicine, 15(3), 194-200.
  19. 19. Two-Item Self-Esteem scale (TISE) (Minoura & Narita, 2013)Japanese only. The TISE consists of two aspects of self- esteem concept: one is a self-evaluation, and the other is a self-acceptance. ①自分にはいろいろな良い素質があると思う (I think I have various good capabilities.) ②自分のことを好ましく感じる (I feel I love myself.) 箕浦有希久,成田健一(2013)2項目自尊感情尺度の開発および信頼性・妥当性の検討.感情心理学研究,21(1):37-45 Minoura & Narita(2013), The development of the Two-Item Self-Esteem scale (TISE), Japanese Journal of Research on emotions 21(1),37-45 19
  20. 20. CL-SES, Self-esteem and Belief-Resilience Self-esteem Belief-Resilience Compassion Leadership Skills (CL) .25 .28 Encourage Leadership Skills (EL) .37 .39 Support for Acceptance (SA) .25 .30 Support for Criticisms (SC) .30 .38 N= 228 All ***p<.001 Correlation analysis
  21. 21. Discussion ■The CL-SES showed excellent internal consistency (4 Factors,α= .90–.92) in a sample of 1549 Japanese individuals. ■Criterion-related validity was also determined among Big 5, BRS, TISE, Team Psychological Safety,C-LEAD-J. ■The results of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the proposed scale for evaluating in Japanese individuals. ■However, it will be necessary to conduct a psychological experiment and Intervention based on Compassion approach (Ex: Intervention or Cognitive experiment). 21

×