Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Measures of Psychological Safety
Liu, J. W.; Ein, N.; Plouffe, R. A.; Gervasio, J.; St. Cyr, K.; Nazarov, A.; Richardson, J. D.
Show abstract
PurposeIn a psychologically safe environment, individuals feel safe to share thoughts, acknowledge errors, experiment with new ideas, and exhibit mutual respect. However, there is little consensus on how psychological safety should be measured and the constructs that make up psychological safety. This meta-analysis and systematic review sought to evaluate the quality of measures used to assess psychological safety. MethodologyThe meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted using Cochranes guidelines as a framework for data synthesis. A total of 217 studies were included in this review. FindingsAcross 217 studies, the average internal consistency value ranged from Cronbachs alpha of .77 to .81, with considerable heterogeneities across samples (I2 = 99.92, Q[221] = 259632.32, p < .001). Together, findings suggest that the quality of existing measures evaluating psychological safety may be acceptable. OriginalityThere is room for improvement with respect to examinations of factor structures within psychological safety, the degree of association between psychological safety and other constructs, and opportunities for exploring similarities and differences across populations and contexts.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Changes in hospital staff mental health during the Covid-19 pandemic: longitudinal results from the international COPE-CORONA study 94%
- Risk and Protective Factors for Self-Harm and Suicide Behaviours among Serving and Ex-Serving Personnel of the UK Armed Forces, Canadian Armed Forces, Australian Defence Force and New Zealand Defence Force: A Systematic Review 94%
- Suicide prevention curriculum development for health and social care students: Protocol for a scoping review 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- How should job crafting interventions be implemented to make their effects last? Study protocol of group concept mapping 93%
- Acculturation stressors and academic adjustment among Nepalese students in South Korean higher education institutions 92%
- The experience of distress during the COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-country examination on the fear of COVID-19 and the sense of loneliness 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A mixed methods study protocol to develop and pilot a Competency Assessment Tool to support therapists in the care of patients with blunt CHest trauma (CATCh Study) 94%
- Key factors for effective implementation of healthcare workers support interventions in health organisations after patient safety incidents: a protocol for a scoping review 94%
- Athletes’ access to, attitudes towards, and experiences of help-seeking for mental health: A scoping review protocol 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Substantial SF-36 score differences according to the mode of administration of the questionnaire: an ancillary study of the SENTIPAT multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing web-based questionnaire self-completion and telephone interview 92%
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Chatbots in Promoting Health Behavioral Changes: A Systematic Review 92%
- Health indicators as a measure of individual health status: public perspectives 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Reliability and Validity of the Japanese Version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support 94%
- Effects of participatory organizational interventions on mental health and work performance: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis 92%
- A cross-sectional study of infection control measures against COVID-19 and psychological distress among Japanese workers 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.