Cited by 46Health Sciences Research and EducationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceNursing education and management

EBP Implementation Leadership of Frontline Nurse Managers: Validation of the Implementation Leadership Scale in Acute Care

Open access
Shuman, Clayton J., Ehrhart, Mark G., Torres, Elisa M., Veliz, Philip, Kath, Lisa M., VanAntwerp, Katherine, Banaszak‐Holl, Jane, Titler, Marita G. +1 more·2020·Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing

Abstract

Background: Frontline nurse managers influence the implementation of evidence‐based practices (EBP); however, there is a need for valid and reliable instruments to measure their leadership behaviors for EBP implementation in acute care settings. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS) in acute care settings using two unique nurse samples. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of ILS data obtained through two distinct multisite cross‐sectional studies. Sample 1 included 200 registered nurses from one large Californian health system. Sample 2 was 284 registered nurses from seven Midwest and Northeast U.S. hospitals. Two separate studies by different research teams collected responses using written and electronic questionnaires. We analyzed each sample independently. Descriptive statistics described individual item, total, and subscale scores. We analyzed validity using confirmatory factor analysis and within‐unit agreement (awg). We evaluated factorial invariance using multigroup confirmatory factor analyses and evaluating change in chi‐square and comparative fit index values. We evaluated reliability using Cronbach's alpha. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses in both samples provided strong support for first‐ and second‐order factor structure of the ILS. The factor structure did not differ between the two samples. Across both samples, internal consistency reliability was strong (Cronbach's alpha: 0.91–0.98), as was within‐unit agreement (awg: 0.70–0.80). Linking Evidence to Action: Frontline manager implementation leadership is a critical contextual factor influencing EBP implementation. This study provides strong evidence supporting the validity and reliability of the ILS to measure implementation leadership behaviors of nursing frontline managers in acute care. The ILS can help clinicians, researchers, and leaders in nursing contexts assess frontline manager implementation leadership, deliver interventions to target areas needing improvement, and improve implementation of EBP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/wvn.12402

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ILS has been successfully validated in child welfare, substance use treatment, and acute care.

    “Subsequent studies have begun this work, including successful validation of the instrument in child welfare [30], substance use treatment [31], and acute care [32];”
  • All values on the original subscales (proactive, knowledgeable, supportive, perseverant) were consistently higher than the original ILS development sample in outpatient mental health and validations in substance use treatment settings and acute care, but generally comparable to a validation study in child welfare.

    “All values on the original subscales (i.e., proactive, knowledgeable, supportive, perseverant) were consistently higher than the original ILS development sample in outpatient mental health [26] and validations in substance use treatment settings [31] and acute care [32], but generally comparable to a validation study in child welfare [30].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shuman, C. J., Ehrhart, M. G., Torres, E. M., Veliz, P., Kath, L. M., VanAntwerp, K., Banaszak‐Holl, J., Titler, M. G., & Aarons, G. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • George Mason University (US)
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Shuman, Clayton J.
Venue
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-10-22
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
82-91
ISSN
  • 1545-102X (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-6787
OpenAlex
W2981819141
Cited by
46
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
Keywords
implementation leadership, evidence-based practice implementation, nurse managers, scale validation, acute care nursing, factor structure, measurement invariance, reliability statistics
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Hospitals, Humans, Iowa, Leadership, Male, Middle Aged, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nurse Administrators, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vermont, Reproducibility of Results, Evidence-Based Practice

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