Ravalier PhD Theis.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

134
(6 items)
Managerial
Support
(5 items)
Peer Support
(4 items)
Relationships
(4 items)
Role
(5 items)
Change
(3 items)
8, 23, 29, 33, 35 .87 .88
7, 24, 27, 31 .81 .82
5, 14, 21, 34 .78 .78
1, 4, 11, 13, 17 .83 .83
26, 28, 32 .83 .80
Therefore it can be seen that the 7 factors have all produced good internal reliability figures, and the later
figures produced by Edwards (2008) compare favourably to those produced in the original article which
accompanied the release of the MSIT. The difference between the two studies is that the earlier validation was
conducted using a survey of individuals. However, the tool is designed to be used at an organisational-level, which
is the method that the latter study utilised. As such it can be surmised that internal reliability is strong for use in
either situation. Finally, Edwards et al. reported that the overall scale reliability for the 35-item measure was .92, a
high figure which provides strong evidence that the scale is reliable.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted by Edwards et al. (2008) in order to simultaneously
analyse all variables in the MSIT scale, discovering whether the use of the scale is consistent with the data (i.e.
therefore examining the MSIT factor structure). The reason that Edwards et al. (2008) deemed there to be a need
for a CFA to be conducted is that previously in the Cousins et al. (2004) study an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
was conducted and consequently required a follow up. However, the multivariate nature of the EFA means that