Measuring the learning capacity of organisations: development and factor analysis of the Questionnaire for Learning Organizations

AimsTo investigate internal consistency and factor structure of a questionnaire measuring learning capacity based on Senge's theory of the five disciplines of a learning organisation: Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning, and Systems Thinking.DesignCross-sectional study...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ quality & safety 2011-04, Vol.20 (4), p.307-313
Hauptverfasser: Oudejans, S C C, Schippers, G M, Schramade, M H, Koeter, M W J, van den Brink, W
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:AimsTo investigate internal consistency and factor structure of a questionnaire measuring learning capacity based on Senge's theory of the five disciplines of a learning organisation: Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning, and Systems Thinking.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingSubstance-abuse treatment centres (SATCs) in The Netherlands.ParticipantsA total of 293 SATC employees from outpatient and inpatient treatment departments, financial and human resources departments.Main outcome measuresPsychometric properties of the Questionnaire for Learning Organizations (QLO), including factor structure, internal consistency, and interscale correlations.FindingsA five-factor model representing the five disciplines of Senge showed good fit. The scales for Personal Mastery, Shared Vision and Team Learning had good internal consistency, but the scales for Systems Thinking and Mental Models had low internal consistency.ConclusionsThe proposed five-factor structure was confirmed in the QLO, which makes it a promising instrument to assess learning capacity in teams. The Systems Thinking and the Mental Models scales have to be revised. Future research should be aimed at testing criterion and discriminatory validity.
ISSN:2044-5415
2044-5423
DOI:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.042556