Validation of the Intervention Preparedness Tool: a short measure to assess important precursors for successful implementation of organisational interventions

Figures & data

Table 1. Item-level and scale-level statistics.

			Item-level statistics				Scale-level statistics
	Item code		Mean (SD)	Skew	Kurt	Median	Mean (SD)	Skew	Kurt
Readiness for change	Rfc1	I feel confident that I can use the intervention to improve my working conditions	3.13 (1.04)	−0.44	−0.41	3	3.25 (0.82)	−0.36	0.02
	Rfc2	I have high expectations that the intervention will improve my working conditions	2.99 (1.04)	−0.23	−0.46	3
	Rfc3	I look forward to the changes brought about by the intervention	3.19 (1.06)	−0.44	−0.43	3
	Rfc4	I am ready to accept the changes brought about by the intervention	3.70 (0.79)	−0.81	1.57	4
Communication	Co1	It has been clearly communicated what is expected of me in the project	2.89 (1.04)	−0.13	−0.62	3	2.89 (1.00)	−0.18	−0.57
	Co2	I have received information about the goals of the project	2.89 (1.06)	−0.17	−0.75	3
Intervention-context fit	Icf1	It is clear to me how the intervention is related to the organisation’s overall goals	3.29 (0.90)	−0.56	0.20	3	3.26 (0.80)	−0.54	0.43
	Icf2	The intervention is relevant for solving important problems in my organisation	3.24 (0.92)	−0.53	0.23	3

Note: Skew = skewness; kurt = kurtosis.

Table 2. EFA and CFA models comparison.

EFA – Models	χ^2	df	p	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
1-factor model	552.94	14	<.001	0.71	0.57	0.217	0.108
2-factor model	77.31	8	<.001	0.96	0.90	0.103	0.038
3-factor model	3.74	3	>.05	1.00	0.99	0.017	0.003
CFA – Models	χ^2	df	p	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
1-factor model	594.24	14	<.001	0.73	0.60	0.335	0.091
3-factor model	117.28	11	<.001	0.95	0.91	0.108	0.040
3-factor model*	56.86	10	<.001	0.98	0.96	0.076	0.030

Note: * = with modification.

Table 3. Factor structure for the tool.

	Subsample 1 (EFA; N = 821)					Subsample 2 (CFA; N = 821)
Scale and constituent items	Item-total correlations	h^2	1	2	3	1	2	3
Readiness for change
I feel confident that I can use the intervention to improve my working conditions	.76	.72	.74	.09	.09	.92
I have high expectations that the intervention will improve my working conditions	.70	.82	.92	.02	−.05	.82
I look forward to the changes brought about by the intervention	.71	.76	.90	−.07	.01	.78
Communication
It has been clearly communicated what is expected of me in the project	.69	.79	.02	.87	.02		.92
I have received information about the goals of the project	.67	.86	−.03	.94	.00		.90
Intervention-organisation Fit
It is clear to me how the intervention is related to the organisation’s overall goals	.66	.42	.33	.01	.42			.74
The intervention is relevant for solving important problems in my organisation	.67	.84	−.02	.02	.92			.81

Note: h² = Communalities.

Table 4. Correlations between psychosocial working conditions, job satisfaction and IPT scales (Listwise; N = 1569).

	Intervention-context Fit	Communication	Readiness for change
Demands	−.08^bc	−.15^a	−.13^a
Control	.14	.16^c	.10^b
Peer support	.19	.20	.21
Supervisor support	.24^b	.32^ac	.26^b
Positive relationships at work	.09^b	.18^ac	.11^b
Role	.25	.26^c	.21^b
Change	.28^b	.35^ac	.29^b
Job satisfaction	.13^bc	.18^a	.20^a

Note: All correlations significant at p < .01. ^{a (b) (c)} = this correlation differs significantly from the corresponding correlation of fit (comm) (read) with this concept.