What this found The response rate was excellent at just over 56%. 1193 responses were included for analysis. According to both NHSEEI and item 29 the most engaged profession were the managers. The least engaged were support services. The four main factors established through principal component analysis mirrored the structure of the questionnaire: My experience as an individual My experience with my direct line manager My experience with my team My experience with my organisation Factor analysis is best explained by the item placement within the questionnaire. Because of the variation in responses and the strength of the underpinning theory this is a sign of reliability. analysis showed the majority of items fit the model of staff engagement very well with the following exceptions: The reversed items 4, 16 and 22 do not fit the model. Items 12, 13, 14, 15 & 18 underfit the model. Item 6 overfits the model Factor analysis accounts for the anomalous fit statistics with the exception of the reverse These should be amended. The rest of the items show enough variation to contribute uniquely to the overall construct of staff engagement. Before we can make any recommendations from findings it is important to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the analytic approach we have adopted here. Context and theory: why these findings are valid The credibility of inferences that can be drawn from any questionnaire is a function of the robustness of the initial conceptual model 16. A valid scale is one that allows us to make accurate inferences about someone. What this means in relation to recommendations for this scale is that the central question always remains: the results of this allow us to draw the inferences about the people that we ‘Do wish to make’ 17 The importance of this apparently straightforward statement cannot be overstated. It impacts upon scale development by focusing attention on the purpose of the scale 18. Validation is a unitary construct that tests the theory and the measure at the same time 17. This in turn highlights the importance of grounding the NHSEEI development in a sophisticated and testable conceptual model of what staff engagement is and how it is expressed, understood and evaluated. Because this scale is theoretically grounded, developed by staff and modified through a process of consultation over a series of robust cycles the results of this study do allow us to draw the inferences we wish to make. Therefore, when we scrutinise the factor structure or item fit we can be confident that these issues are conceptually rich.
What this found The response rate was excellent at just over 56%. 1193 responses were included for analysis. According to both NHSEEI and item 29 the most engaged profession were the managers. The least engaged were support services. The four main factors established through principal component analysis mirrored the structure of the questionnaire: My experience as an individual My experience with my direct line manager My experience with my team My experience with my organisation Factor analysis is best explained by the item placement within the questionnaire. Because of the variation in responses and the strength of the underpinning theory this is a sign of reliability. analysis showed the majority of items fit the model of staff engagement very well with the following exceptions: The reversed items 4, 16 and 22 do not fit the model. Items 12, 13, 14, 15 & 18 underfit the model. Item 6 overfits the model Factor analysis accounts for the anomalous fit statistics with the exception of the reverse These should be amended. The rest of the items show enough variation to contribute uniquely to the overall construct of staff engagement. Before we can make any recommendations from findings it is important to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the analytic approach we have adopted here. Context and theory: why these findings are valid The credibility of inferences that can be drawn from any questionnaire is a function of the robustness of the initial conceptual model 16. A valid scale is one that allows us to make accurate inferences about someone. What this means in relation to recommendations for this scale is that the central question always remains: ‘Do the results of this allow us to draw the inferences about the people that we wish to make’ 17 The importance of this apparently straightforward statement cannot be overstated. It impacts upon scale development by focusing attention on the purpose of the scale 18. Validation is a unitary construct that tests the theory and the measure at the same time 17. This in turn highlights the importance of grounding the NHSEEI development in a sophisticated and testable conceptual model of what staff engagement is and how it is expressed, understood and evaluated. Because this scale is theoretically grounded, developed by staff and modified through a process of consultation over a series of robust cycles the results of this study do allow us to draw the inferences we wish to make. Therefore, when we scrutinise the factor structure or item fit we can be confident that these issues are conceptually rich.
validation-of-the-nhs-scotland-employee-engagement-index-final-report.docx