Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 630

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Quantitative Measurement of Organizational Culture in Health Care: A Review of the Available Instruments

Open access
Scott, Tim, Mannion, Russell, Davies, Huw, Marshall, Martin·2003·Health Services Research

Abstract

Objective. To review the quantitative instruments available to health service researchers who want to measure culture and cultural change. Data Sources. A literature search was conducted using Medline, Cinahl, Helmis, Psychlit, Dhdata, and the database of the King's Fund in London for articles published up to June 2001, using the phrase “organizational culture.” In addition, all citations and the gray literature were reviewed and advice was sought from experts in the field to identify instruments not found on the electronic databases. The search focused on instruments used to quantify culture with a track record, or potential for use, in health care settings. Data Extraction. For each instrument we examined the cultural dimensions addressed, the number of items for each questionnaire, the measurement scale adopted, examples of studies that had used the tool, the scientific properties of the instrument, and its strengths and limitations. Principal Findings. Thirteen instruments were found that satisfied our inclusion criteria, of which nine have a track record in studies involving health care organizations. The instruments varied considerably in terms of their grounding in theory, format, length, scope, and scientific properties. Conclusions. A range of instruments with differing characteristics are available to researchers interested in organizational culture, all of which have limitations in terms of their scope, ease of use, or scientific properties. The choice of instrument should be determined by how organizational culture is conceptualized by the research team, the purpose of the investigation, intended use of the results, and availability of resources.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1475-6773.00154

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Cited by

See all 630

Metadata

Authors
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M.
Venue
Health Services Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-05-23
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
923-945
ISSN
  • 0017-9124 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-6773
OpenAlex
W2067857772
Cited by
630
References
48
FWCI
28.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Quantitative Measurement of Organizational Culture in Health Care: A Review of the Available Instruments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1475-6773.00154
The paper
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2003). The Quantitative Measurement of Organizational Culture in Health Care: A Review of the Available Instruments. Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.00154

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.