Cited by 3Organizational Change and LeadershipOrganizational Management and ChangeCorporate Management and Leadership

ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE CAPABILITY THROUGH A MULTISECTORAL STUDY: DEVELOPMENT AND PSYCHOMETRIC VALIDATION OF THE “CHANGE MANAGEMENT SCALE”

Open access
Çalışkan, Abdullah·2025·Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi

Abstract

In today’s dynamic organizational environments, the capability to manage change effectively has become a critical determinant of institutional success and sustainability. This study aims to develop and validate the Change Management Scale (CMS), a multidimensional tool designed to assess organizations’ ability to plan, implement, and institutionalize change. The research employed a quantitative design and collected data from three sectors—education, healthcare, and energy/renewable energy—where change processes are both rapid and deeply impactful. To establish the structural validity of the CMS, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted on data obtained from three independent sample groups. Criterion-related validity was examined through correlations between the CMS and the Openness to Organizational Change Scale, demonstrating a positive and significant relationship. The EFA and CFA results supported a three-factor structure—Strategic Decision and Leadership, Preparation and Planning, and Implementation, Monitoring, and Institutionalization—with satisfactory model fit indices. Reliability analyses revealed Cronbach’s alpha coefficients above .70 for all dimensions, indicating high internal consistency. The findings confirm that the CMS is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring change management practices across diverse organizational settings. Its concise structure and sector-neutral design make it suitable for application in various industries and cultural contexts. The CMS contributes to both theory and practice by providing researchers and practitioners with a practical framework for assessing, monitoring, and enhancing organizational change capability. The scale items are presented in both English and Turkish at the end of the study.

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 · 10.29131/uiibd.1811002

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Çalışkan, A.
Affiliations
Toros University (TR)
Corresponding author
Çalışkan, Abdullah
Venue
Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi
Published
2025-12-25
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
65-94
ISSN
2149-5823 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7117303394
Cited by
3
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Management and Change
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Management and Leadership
Keywords
change management, scale development, psychometric validation, education sector, health sector

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