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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBMJ quality & safety Vol. 20; no. 4; pp. 307 - 313
Main Authors Oudejans, S C C, Schippers, G M, Schramade, M H, Koeter, M W J, van den Brink, W
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 01.04.2011
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary: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.
Bibliography:PMID:21292691
istex:A56841E53B0E8F2B843F3BE85B4AB83F69E496EF
href:qhc-20-307.pdf
ark:/67375/NVC-TWM02S5Z-7
ArticleID:qhc42556
local:qhc;20/4/307
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:2044-5415
2044-5423
DOI:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.042556