Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Leadership Practices ...

International Journal of Nursing 

Education Scholarship 

Volume 4, Issue 1 2007 Article 23 

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese 

Leadership Practices Inventory 

Hsiu-Chin Chen ∗ Mark Baron † 

∗ Utah Valley State College, chenhs@uvsc.edu 

† University of South Dakota, mbaron@usd.edu 

Copyright c○2007 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese 

Leadership Practices Inventory 

Hsiu-Chin Chen and Mark Baron 

Abstract 

There is little evidence of psychometric properties of the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) 

when used with Taiwan’s nursing faculty. The purpose of this study was to examine psychometric 

properties of the Chinese LPI and provide a culturally appropriate instrument for use in Taiwan’s 

nursing. Thirteen bachelor and nine associate degree nursing programs were eligible for participation. 

The Chinese LPI was used to gather nursing faculty’s perceptions of leadership behaviors 

of nursing deans and directors. A total of 369 questionnaires were returned. Psychometric examinations 

used content validity, internal consistency reliability, item analysis, and construct and 

concurrent validities. Cronbach’s alpha of the Chinese LPI total scale was .96. Three factors were 

extracted that explained 59.5 % of the variance. Concurrent validity was supported by the Chinese 

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X). Findings for the psychometric properties and 

cultural appropriateness of the Chinese LPI supported its potential as an instrument for measuring 

nursing leadership in Taiwan. 

KEYWORDS: psychometrics, content validity, factor analysis, item analysis, concurrent validity

Chen and Baron: Psychometrics of the Chinese LPI 

Effective leadership has played a critical role in operating an 

organization’s performance. The central role of effective leadership is to build a 

relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow 

(Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Studies have been conducted to explore how leadership 

can be used to influence subordinates for better organizational accomplishment. 

The outcome of these studies relied heavily on using qualified instruments to 

examine leaders’ performance on different leadership dimensions (Zagorsek, 

Stough, & Jaklic, 2006). Accurate assessment of leadership can contribute a 

substantial body of knowledge about the relationship between leadership and 

social-psychological phenomenon, and provide useful feedback for leaders to 

understand their leadership behaviors, as perceived by their subordinates. 

One of the most developed and tested instruments is the Posner and 

Kouzes’ (1988) Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) based on five practices of 

exemplary leadership. Yet, there is little evidence regarding psychometric 

properties of its use in nursing education, especially in Taiwan. Therefore, the 

main purpose of this study was to examine psychometric properties of the Chinese 

LPI and to provide a culturally appropriate instrument for use in Taiwan’s nursing 

education. 

The following research questions were addressed in this study: (1) what 

are Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, item-to-item, and item-to-total correlations of 

the Chinese LPI-observer according to item analysis for internal consistency 

reliability? (2) what is the construct validity of the Chinese LPI-observer assessed 

by Taiwan’s nursing faculty? and (3) are the Chinese LPI-observer total and 

subscales significantly correlated with the Chinese Multifactor Leadership 

Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) for concurrent validity assessment? 

BACKGROUND 

In the 1980s, transformational leadership became a well-known topic in 

psychology, management, sociology, and political science. The concept of 

transformational leadership stimulated researchers’ interest in understanding of 

the leadership process that goes beyond the dimensions of consideration of 

subordinates’ feeling and initiating subordinates toward goal accomplishment. 

Integrated into transformational leadership theory are trait, behavior, and 

contingency approaches, while incorporating and building upon charismatic and 

political leadership. As its name implies, transformational leadership motivates 

individuals to change and promotes followers’ awareness and acceptance of the 

group’s vision and mission. 

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2007 

1

International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, Vol. 4 [2007], Iss. 1, Art. 23 

Based on the previous studies of leadership, Bass (1985) proposed a more 

expanded and refined version of transformational leadership theory. 

Transformational leaders motivate subordinates to do more than originally 

expected, and accordingly, subordinates’ confidence levels are elevated and needs 

satisfied. The main task of Bass’ transformational leadership research is the 

development of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) used to identify 

the transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles (Bass, 1985). 

The MLQ has been revised several times and has been used in nearly 200 research 

programs, doctoral dissertations, and master theses around the world (Bass & 

Avolio, 2000). 

Similar to the concept of transformational leadership theory, Posner and 

Kouzes’ (1988) visionary or exemplary leadership proposed that outstanding 

leaders use five practices of behaviors to facilitate employees to achieve 

organizational goals. Visionary leaders search for opportunities to change the 

status quo, inspire a shared vision and set a model to foster collaboration, 

empower employees to pursue a potential future, and recognize the contributions 

of employees to the overall success of the organization. The five practices of 

exemplary leadership have subsequently been developed into the Leadership 

Practices Inventory (LPI). 

The LPI developed by Posner and Kouzes (1988) is used to assess 

leadership behavior. A conceptual leadership model on which the LPI is based 

was developed through a qualitative study including a survey of 1,100 managers, 

and was generated from 38 in-depth interviews of managers. Content analysis was 

employed to analyze the data collected from the managers who had personal best 

experience being leaders. Five practices of exemplary leadership were then 

identified. After the development of the five practices, the LPI focused on 

articulating scale items. The feedback of administering the LPI obtained from 

Masters of Business Administration students, experts, and managers formed a 30item 

instrument with six items reflecting each of the five leadership practices. 

Each item was cast on a 5-point Likert scale scored from 1 (seldom or rarely) to 5 

(very often) representing the frequency of using a leadership behavior. Two 

parallel forms were developed to evaluate the leadership behaviors described by 

the leaders (LPI-self) or observed by the subordinates (LPI-observer). 

Psychometric evaluation of the LPI was examined using a sample of 2,876 

managers and subordinates who worked in a variety of private and public sector 

companies (Posner & Kouzes, 1988). Internal reliabilities of the five subscales 

ranged from .70 to .84 for the LPI-self and .79 to .91 for the LPI-observer. The 

average of test-retest reliability was .94. A principal components factor analysis 

http://www.bepress.com/ijnes/vol4/iss1/art23 

2


(PCA) with varimax rotation was conducted to extract five factors accounting for 

59.9% of the variance. The loadings of the five factors ranged from .37 to .73 

were reported. 

An additional examination of the psychometric properties of the LPI 

involved over 36,000 managers and subordinates representing private and public 

companies (Posner & Kouzes, 1993). Internal reliabilities for the five subscales of 

the LPI-self ranged from .70 to .85 and .81 to .92 for the LPI-observer. Test-retest 

reliability for the five practices was above the .93 level. Five factors were 

extracted from a PCA with varimax rotation, and accounted for 60.2% of the 

variance. The findings consistently supported the LPI for measuring the five 

leadership practices (Posner & Kouzes, 1993). Even in the latest third edition of 

the LPI, proposed is that some question items were revised and reordered in item 

number. The five practices remained the same and psychometric properties were 

consistent with the first edition (Kouzes & Posner, 2000). 

The extensive testing has revealed that the LPI exhibited sound 

psychometric properties. Yet, a study using the item response theory to analyze its 

reliability found that some items are redundant and contribute little to the overall 

precision of the instrument (Zagorsek et al., 2006). Moreover, there are no reports 

of psychometric properties when the LPI is used in the healthcare system 

(Tourangeau & McGilton, 2004). Because of the limited evidence of the LPIs 

psychometric evaluation in nursing research, Tourangeau and McGilton collected 

data from 67 LPI-self of nurse managers and 347 LPI-observer of nurses, and 

aimed at narrowing the knowledge gap of psychometric properties of the LPI used 

in nursing fields. 

Computerized search from 1990 to 2005, including nursing (CINAHL), 

medical literature (Medline), and the “Dissertation and Thesis Abstract System” 

in Taiwan’s Ministry of Education databases, indicated that the LPI has not been 

used to evaluate leadership of nursing administration in Taiwan. Before 

instruments can be used for populations other than those for whom they were 

originally developed, assessment of psychometric properties and validation of 

cultural appropriateness are essential (Lee, Farran, Tripp-Reimer, & Sadler, 2003). 

Researchers are convinced that an instrument is required to have rigid reliability 

and validity tests before being used in leadership research in order to examine the 

behaviors of leaders and the related factors affecting the relationship between 

leaders and subordinates (Huber et al., 2000). 


3


Study Design 

METHODS 

This was a cross-sectional survey study using self-administered 

questionnaires. The study procedures consisted of four stages including 

translation and back-translation of the first edition of the LPI, an expert panel 

review for content validation, a pilot test stage, and a study stage. The purpose of 

translating a research instrument is to achieve semantic equivalence for 

conducting a cross-cultural study with non-English-speaking populations. A 

modified version of Brislin’s (1986) translation method was used to translate the 

LPI into the Chinese version. The modified procedures were as follows: (1) 

provide the English LPI to a bilingual person who was familiar with Taiwan’s 

culture; (2) instruct the bilingual person to translate the English LPI into the 

Chinese version; (3) have the other bilingual person who was qualified for 

bilingual teaching in Taiwan blindly translate the Chinese version back to an 

English version; and (4) ask three bilingual raters individually to compare the 

English and Chinese versions for semantic equivalence. All raters and translators 

held masters degrees and had taught in English teaching institutions. Similar to 

the process of translation and back translation used in Wang, Lee, and Fetzer’s 

(2006) study, strategies including selecting qualified translators, a review panel, 

and a pilot test on target population helped to maximize the translation 

equivalence of the Chinese LPI. 

An expert panel review for content validation of the Chinese LPI is critical 

for assuring the content holds the similar meaning with the original one and 

appropriately fits for Taiwan’s culture. Three bilingual professors who held 

doctoral degrees and had worked as leaders in Taiwan’s nursing administration 

were invited. These experts were asked to rate items for linguistic and conceptual 

clarity, representative of Taiwan’s culture and background, and the relevance of 

the identified concept. Each item was rated by a 4-point ordinal rating scale 

scored from 1 to 4. The average congruency percentage (ACP) among raters was 

96%, indicating acceptable items if percentage is 90% or higher (Waltz, 

Strickland, & Lenz, 2005). The relevance and representative of item-level content 

validity index (I-CVI) for the 30-item Chinese LPI were 1.0 and .99, respectively. 

An item is considered well for use if the I-CVI is 1.0 rated by five or fewer 

experts (Lynn, 1986). According to the comments of linguistic clarity obtained 

from the expert panel, ambiguous wording was revised to better accommodate 

Taiwan’s nursing educational settings. 


4

Permissions for conducting this study were approved by the university’s 

Institutional Review Board and each of the participating nursing schools in 

Taiwan. A convenience sample of 15 faculty members was piloted from a junior 

nursing college in Taiwan to determine the readability of the Chinese LPI. 

Eligibility criteria of selecting subjects for the pilot test included full-time female 

and male nursing faculty holding ranks of instructor, assistant professor, associate 

professor, or professor. The faculty were asked to provide their comments about 

whether the instructions were clear and if the question items were easy to answer. 

No items were modified. 

Population and Sample 

A minimum sample size of 20 full-time nursing faculty members from 

each school was required for selection. In 2003, 13 baccalaureate and nine 

associate degree nursing programs were eligible for this study. To qualify for this 

study, each female and male subject was required to be full-time faculty, an 

instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor. An adequate 

sample size for factor analysis and validity and reliability analyses was 

determined to be at least 300 subjects in this study (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). 

Twenty faculty members were randomly selected from each of the 13 schools 

with baccalaureate nursing programs for participation. To ensure adequate 

representation, all nursing faculty from each of the nine associate nursing 

programs were recruited. In terms of the needed sample size, 516 questionnaires 

were mailed to the potential participants to reach a projected 60% response rate. 

Data were collected in a confidential manner. Participation was voluntary, and 

questionnaires were answered anonymously. The completed questionnaires were 

returned directly to the investigator through mail. 

Measures 


The Chinese LPI-observer was used to gather the faculty’s perceptions of 

their deans’ or directors’ five practices of leadership behavior in this study. 

Because of the small sample size of nursing deans and directors (n = 22), no 

attempt was made to collect data of self-evaluation of leadership practices. The 

Chinese LPI translated from the first edition is a 30-item questionnaire with a 5point 

Likert scale scored from 1 (seldom or rarely) to 5 (very often) representing 

the frequency of using a leadership behavior. Five subscales compose the Chinese 

LPI with six question items in each subscale. The five subscales include 

challenging the process, inspiring a shared vision, enabling others to act, 

modeling the way, and encouraging the heart. The Chinese Multifactor 

Leadership Questionnaire Form 5X (MLQ-5X) developed by Shieh, Mills, and 


5


Waltz (2001) was used to examine the concurrent validity of the Chinese LPI. The 

MLQ-5X was selected because of its widespread use and the similarity of 

underlying concepts. The Chinese MLQ-5X has 36 items, which was developed 

to measure 233 nursing faculty’s perceptions of their deans’ and directors’ 

leadership styles of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire in Taiwan. 

The Cronbach’s alphas of the Chinese MLQ-5X total and each subscale ranged 

from .71 to .94. The CVI was .75 and 1.0, as assessed by doctoral bilingual 

professors (Shieh et al., 2001). In Chen and Baron’s (2006) study for examining 

175 nursing faculty’s job satisfaction and their perceptions of leadership styles of 

nursing directors, the Chinese MLQ-5X consistently demonstrated acceptable 

internal reliability (α = .70 to .88). 

Psychometric Analysis 

The internal consistency of the Chinese LPI-observer was assessed using 

Cronbach’s alpha, and the acceptable coefficient was set at .70 (Kerlinger & Lee, 

2000). Item analyses including item-total and inter-item correlations were 

performed to examine the homogeneity and multi-collinearity of the Chinese LPIobserver. 

Acceptable coefficients for item-total correlations are greater than .30, 

which indicate items contributing to the measure; and greater than .30 and less 

than .80 for interitem correlations, which coefficients greater than .80 indicate 

redundant items because of multicollinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). 

A PCA using varimax rotation was first computed in an attempt to 

replicate the five factors, as originally proposed by Posner and Kouzes (1988, 

1993). Then, a principal axis factor analysis (PAF) with oblimin rotation was used 

because the five factors were highly correlated (Tourangeau & McGilton, 2004). 

Oblique rotation is used when there was evidence showing that the underlying 

factors are correlated (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). It is reasonable to assume that a 

leader will possess more than one leadership behavior. Factors were extracted 

based on the results of a scree plot, eigenvalues, total variance, and the conceptual 

consideration. A cutting point of .40 was used for factor loading, and the 

minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 was determined for retaining items (Pett, Lackey, & 

Sullivan, 2003). Pearson correlations for concurrent validity were computed to 

assess the relationship between the Chinese LPI-observer and the Chinese MLQ- 

5X. 


6


FINDINGS 

Initial Psychometric Properties of the Chinese LPI-Observer 

A total of 369 questionnaires were returned representing a 72% response 

rate. The majority (n = 335, 92.5%) of the participants were females and were 

married (n = 265, 73.4%). Most were between 31 and 40 years old (n = 231, 

63.8%), and approximately 86.5% (n = 313) earned master degrees. The 

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the 30-item Chinese LPI-observer were .96 for 

the total scale and .80 to .91 for the five subscales, respectively. For item analysis, 

the inter-item correlation coefficients for item 11 among all other items were less 

than .30. The coefficient for item 20 and item 15 was .81. Yet, the coefficients for 

item 15 among other items were less than .80. The corrected item-total coefficient 

of item 11 was .19. Thus, item 11 was deleted because of its lack of contribution 

to this measure, and the redundant item 20 was discarded. 

In terms of five factors developed from the original LPI, five factors were 

forced to enter the analysis using PCA with varimax rotation to examine construct 

validity of the 28 items. Two of the five factors had only three question items 

defining the factors, and one item composed one factor. Thus, PAF analysis with 

direct oblimin rotation was then used because of moderate to high correlations (r 

= .53 to .79) among the five factors found in this study. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 

measure of sampling adequacy was .96. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 

significant (χ 2 = 6753.83, p = .000), which indicated that the correlation matrix 

was not an identity matrix. Three factors’ eigenvalues were greater than one, and 

a discontinuity in the plotted values between the third and fourth factor was 

identified in the scree test. 

The three factors accounted for 57.3% of the total variance. Three items 

were deleted because they could explain less than 10% of the variance. Twentyfive 

out of the 28 items demonstrated moderate or strong loadings (> .40). The 

PAF with direct oblimin rotation was rerun to examine the 25-item Chinese LPIobserver. 

Three factors were found and accounted for 58.6% of the total variance, 

but one item was discarded owing to factor loading less than .40. Through initial 

item and factor analyses, six items were removed. 

Psychometric Properties after Deleting Six Items 

The Cronbach’s alpha of the 24-item Chinese LPI-observer was .96, 

and .92, .92, and .87 for the three subscales, respectively. The interitem 

correlation coefficients of all items within each subscale were greater than .30 and 


7


less than .80. The corrected item-total correlation coefficients were all greater 

than .30. A PAF analysis with direct oblimin rotation was performed again to 

assess construct validity of the 24 items. Three factors were extracted and 

explained 59.5% of the total variance. All of the 24 items demonstrated moderate 

to strong loadings (> .40). The pattern matrix showed that most of the items were 

loaded only on one factor, indicating the items in a factor were well clustered (see 

Table 1). The Pearson product moment correlation was computed to assess the 

relationship between the Chinese MLQ-5X and the Chinese LPI-observer for 

concurrent validity. The Chinese LPI total and subscales were highly and 

significantly correlated with the transformational leadership subscale of the 

Chinese MLQ-5X (r = .724 to .874, p < .01). The laissez-faire leadership 

subscale , an inappropriate and ineffective way to lead subordinates, was 

negatively and significantly correlated with the Chinese LPI-observer total and 

subscales (r = -.371 to r = -.535, p < .01). 

DISCUSSION 

Initial Psychometric Properties of the Chinese LPI-Observer 

Although the LPI is one of most well-developed and used instruments for 

examining leadership behavior, there is a need for assessing psychometrics and 

cultural appropriateness in which the LPI is used in a cross-cultural study. The 

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the original Chinese LPI-observer total and 

subscales were greater than .80, indicating adequate internal consistency. Most of 

nursing research using the LPI did not report its psychometric properties. 

Tourangeau and McGilton’s (2004) study demonstrated acceptable reliability 

(α > .80) in using the LPI. For item analysis, item 11 challenges the way we do 

things at work had low correlation coefficients (< .30) with every item. A possible 

reason may stem from the word “challenges,” because it is related to the 

perception of “criticizes subordinates’ performance.” Taiwan’s nursing faculty 

perceived this kind leadership behavior as serving to suppress their selfdetermination 

and autonomy in their positions. A relatively high correlation 

between item 20 gives members lots of appreciation and support and item 15 

praises people for a job well done may indicate that both items present the same 

meaning of recognition of contributions. Thus, items 11 and 20 were deleted 

through the item-level analysis. 


8

Table 1 

Factor Solution of the24-Item Chinese LPI-Observer 

Factor/Item Communalities Factor Loadings 

Pattern Matrix a 

Factor 1: Enabling others to act 

LPI 8: treats others with respect 

LPI 18: fosters cooperative relationships 

LPI 13: supports their own decisions 

LPI 23: creates mutual trust 

LPI 28: provides a sense of ownership 

LPI 3: involves in planning actions 

LPI 21: asks "what can we learn?" 

LPI 9: breaks projects into steps 

Factor 2: Inspiring a shared vision 

LPI 26: lets others take risks 

LPI 2: describes the kind of future 

LPI 27: be enthusiastic about possibilities 

LPI 29: sets clear goals and plans 

LPI 1: seeks challenging opportunities 

LPI 24: be consistent in practicing values 

LPI 6: stays up to date 

LPI 30: tells the good work done 

LPI 4: clear about leadership philosophy 

LPI 17: shows long-term future interests 

LPI 12: communicates hopeful outlook 

Factor 3: Encouraging the heart 

LPI 5: celebrates accomplishments 

LPI 25: finds ways to publicly celebrate 

LPI 14: adheres to the values 

LPI 15: praises people for job done 

LPI 10: recognizes people’s contributions 

Eigenvalue: 12.27 

.663 

.786 

.651 

.779 

.677 

.471 

.499 

.631 


.536 

.610 

.668 

.677 

.438 

.353 

.533 

.464 

.594 

.666 

.568 


.667 

.610 

.452 

.696 

.593 

% of variance: 49.5 

.855 

.820 

.795 

.763 

.657 

.556 

.522 

.444 


.747 

.724 

.713 

.635 

.623 

.607 

.552 

.520 

.486 

.465 

.426 


.757 

.675 

.449 

.434 

.414 

Note. LPI = Leadership Practices Inventory (1 st ed.). Only brief description of each item is 

provided. Copyright is reserved by Posner, B. Z. and Kouzes, J. M. (1988). 

a Extraction method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser 

normalization. 



9


For construct validity, three factors were extracted from the 28-item 

Chinese LPI-observer using PAF analysis with direct oblimin rotation, and 

accounted for 57.3% of the total variance. The item 7 shares future dream, item 

16 looks for ways to improve, item 19 talks about guiding beliefs, and item 22 

forecasts the expected future did not meet the criterion of factor loading greater 

than .40 and were eliminated. The possible reason for dropping these four items is 

that Taiwan’s nursing faculty perceived little about nursing leaders’ vision and 

belief related to specific leadership behavior. Taiwan’s nursing deans or directors 

may face restrictions in their decisions from their presidents and deans of 

academic affairs; in turn, nursing deans or directors may not fully display 

conviction in their commitments, owing to limited authority (Chen, Beck, & 

Amos, 2005). Three factors of the Chinese LPI are consistent with Tourangeau 

and McGilton’s (2004) study in which the third edition of the LPI was used and in 

which three new factors named cognitive, behavioral, and supportive practices 

were proposed. As a result of deleting four items through factor analyses, 

psychometric properties were reexamined to demonstrate the improvement of the 

24-item Chinese LPI-observer. 

Psychometric Properties after Deleting Six Items 

The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the 24-item Chinese LPI-observer 

total scale was .96, which was the same as the original 30-item Chinese LPI and 

consistently demonstrated acceptable reliability. For item analysis, all of the 

interitem and corrected item-total correlation coefficients showed acceptable 

homogeneity within these 24 items. In factor analysis, the three same factors were 

extracted that explained 59.5% of the total variance, which was close to the 

results of Posner and Kouzes’ (1988, 1993) studies. The results of concurrent 

validity show that the Chinese LPI-observer total and subscales are highly and 

positively correlated with the transformational leadership subscale of the Chinese 

MLQ-5X, which means that both scales represent the similar concepts of 

leadership behavior. Concurrent validity is also supported by the significantly 

negative relationships among the Chinese LPI-observer total and subscales and 

the laissez-faire subscale of the Chinese MLQ-5X. The laissez-faire style is a 

nonleadership factor-nontransformational and nontransactional. 

Interpretation of Three New Factors 

Factors were named according to items with higher loadings and item 

meaning. Factor one, enabling others to act, contains eight items (items 3, 8, 9, 13, 

18, 21, 23, and 28) from most of Posner and Kouzes’ (1988) original leadership 

practices of enabling others to act (see Table 2). This factor is similar to the 


10


behavioral practices proposed from Tourangeau and McGilton’s (2004) study, 

which interprets that a visionary leader fosters collaboration with subordinates, 

provides individual consideration, and empowers others to work more efficiently 

and productively. Leaders in a collectivist culture such as the Chinese society are 

morally responsible for taking care of their subordinates (Bass & Avolio, 2000). 

Taiwan’s culture is still influenced by Confucian and Taoist traditions with the 

expectation that leaders set a role model to enable their subordinates’ performance 

(Chen & Baron, 2006). 

Factor two named inspiring a shared vision, consists of 11 items (items 1, 

2, 4, 6, 12, 17, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 30) from most of Posner and Kouzes’ original 

(1988) three leadership practices of inspiring a shared vision, challenging the 

process, and modeling the way. This factor reflects that Taiwan’s female leaders 

tend to be supportive toward their subordinates and are willing to motivate the 

working process by sharing future vision (Pan, Liang, & Chen, 2000). This factor 

is similar to the cognitive practice proposed in Tourangeau and McGilton’s (2004) 

study. 

Five items (items 5, 10, 14, 15, and 25) compose factor three, encouraging 

the heart, which is from Posner and Kouzes’ (1988) original leadership practices 

of encouraging the heart. This factor is supported by Zagorsek et al. (2004) study, 

indicating that women engage in the leadership practices enabling others to act 

and encouraging the heart more than men. Taiwan’s female leaders are 

potentially more capable of providing encouragement to their subordinates 

because of their female roles and responsibility given from a traditional Chinese 

society. They tend to be more empathetic with their followers’ need and be 

willing to model the way for their followers. 


11

Table 2 


Construct Factors of the LPI 

The 24-item Chinese LPI a in this 

study 

Factor 1: Enabling others to act 

LPI c 3 (9), 8 (14), 9 (21), 13 (19), 

18 (4), 21 (18), 23 (24), 28 

(29) 

Factor2:Inspiring a shared vision 

LPI c 1 (3), 2 (7), 4 (26), 6 (2), 12 

(27), 17 (17), 24 (11), 26 

(28), 27 d , 29 (23), 30 (20) 

Factor 3: Encouraging the heart 

LPI c 5 (20), 10 (15), 14 (6), 15 

(5), 25 (25) 

Posner and Kouzes (1988, 1993) a : 

30 items 

Factor: Enabling others to act 

LPI 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28 

Factor: Modeling the way 

LPI 9 

Factor: Challenging the process 

LPI 21 

Factor: Inspiring a shared vision 

LPI 2, 12, 17, 27 

Factor: Challenging the process 

LPI 1, 6, 26 


LPI 4, 24, 29 

Factor: Encouraging the heart 

LPI 30 

Factor: Encouraging the heart 

LPI 5, 10, 15, 25 


LPI 14 

Tourangeau and 

McGilton (2004) b : 

27 items 

Factor: Behavioral 

LPI 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 

14, 18, 19, 23, 

24, 29 

Factor: Cognitive 

LPI 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 

12, 17, 21, 22, 

27 

Factor: Supportive 

LPI 5, 10, 15, 20, 

25, 30 

Note. LPI = Leadership Practices Inventory. 

a st 

The 1 edition of the LPI which is a 5-point Likert scale rating from 1 (seldom) to 5 (very often). 

b rd 

The 3 edition of the LPI which is a 10-point Likert scale rating from 1 (almost never) to 10 

(almost always). 

c st rd 

LPI item number, the 1 edition (item number, the 3 edition). For example, LPI 3 (9) means 

item number 3 of the first edition is the same as item number 9 in the third edition of the LPI. 

d st rd 

LPI 27 in the 1 edition was deleted from the 3 edition of the LPI. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The 24-item Chinese LPI with three factors consistently demonstrated 

sound psychometric properties. This is a culturally appropriate instrument and it 

can be used in Taiwan’s nursing education. The results of psychometric 

examination can provide practical and empirical evidence for instrument 

modification when applied in populations with different cultures and languages. 

The research regarding leadership behavior of nursing deans and directors is 

relatively new in Taiwan’s nursing education. As well, most theories and 

measurements applied in leadership research originate from Western countries. 


12


Further studies are recommended to test the reliability and validity of the 24-item 

Chinese LPI. The knowledge obtained from the psychometric and cultural 

examinations of the Chinese LPI in this study can contribute to the development 

of leadership concept in Taiwan’s nursing education, and provide an example for 

conducting a cross-cultural study using Western instruments. 

REFERENCES 

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: 

Free Press. 

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Manual for Multifactor Leadership 

Questionnaire: Sampler Set (2nd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. 

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In J. 

W. Berry (Ed.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137-164). 

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 

Chen, H. C., & Baron, M. (2006). Nursing directors' leadership styles and faculty 

members' job satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Education, 

45(10), 404-411. 

Chen, H. C., Beck, S. L., & Amos, L. K. (2005). Leadership styles and nursing 

faculty job satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(4), 

374-380. 

Huber, D. L., Mass, M., McCloskey, J., Scherb, C. A., Goode, C. J., & Watson, C. 

(2000). Evaluating nursing administration instruments. Journal of Nursing 

Administration, 30(5), 251-272. 

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th 

ed.). New York: Harcourt College Publishers. 

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San 

Diego: Jossey-Bass. 

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. ( 2000). Leadership practices inventory: 

Psychometric properties. Retrieved April16, 2007, from 

http://media.wiley.com/assets/56/95/lc_jb_psychometric_properti.pdf 

Lee, E. E., Farran, C. J., Tripp-Reimer, T., & Sadler, G. R. (2003). Assessing the 

cultural appropriateness of the finding meaning through caregiving scale 

for Korean caregivers. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 11(1), 19-28. 

Lynn, M. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing 

Research, 35(6), 382-385. 

Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical 

methods (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak publishing. 

Pan, H. L., Liang, W. C., & Chen, Y. H. (2000). The analysis of educational 

leadership theses during the last decade in Taiwan: Feminist perspectives. 

Journal of Women and Gender (Taiwan), 11, 151-190. 


13


Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor 

analysis. CA, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, Inc. 

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Development and validation of the 

leadership practices inventory. Educational and Psychological 

Measurement, 48, 483-496. 

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1993). Psychometric properties of the leadership 

practices inventory-updated. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 

53, 191-199. 

Shieh, H., Mills, M. E., & Waltz, C. F. (2001). Academic leadership style 

predictors for nursing faculty job satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of 

Nursing Education, 40(5), 203-209. 

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). 

Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Tourangeau, A. E., & McGilton, K. (2004). Measuring leadership practices of 

nurses using the leadership practices inventory. Nursing Research, 53(3), 

182-189. 

Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (2005). Measurement in nursing 

and health research (3rd ed.). New York: Springer. 

Wang, W. L., Lee, H. L., & Fetzer, S. J. (2006). Challenges and strategies of 

instrument translation. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 28(3), 310- 

321. 

Zagorsek, H., Jaklic, M., & Stough, S. J. (2004). Comparing leadership practices 

between the United States, Nigeria, and Slovenia: Does culture matter? 

Cross Cultural Management, 11(2), 16-34. 

Zagorsek, H., Stough, S. J., & Jaklic, M. (2006). Analysis of the reliability of the 

leadership practices inventory in the item response theory framework. 

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(2), 180-191. 


14

Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Leadership Practices ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?