Design and Psychometrics of the Assessment Instrument for Innovation Capabilities of Medical Sciences Universities Using the Cube Model Approach

  • Mashallah TORABI Health Information Management Research Center, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Teh-ran, Iran
  • Reza SAFDARI Health Information Management Research Center, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Saharnaz NEDJAT Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Kazem MOHAMMAD Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Maryam GOODARZI Technology Management Department, Faculty of Management and Economy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
  • Hossein DARGAHI 1. Health Information Management Research Center, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2. Department of Health Care Management, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Instrument design;, Psychometrics;, Innovation;, Assessment

Abstract

Background: To investigate any subject, a scholar needs a suitable instrument to collect the required information with the utmost accuracy and the least amount of error. Therefore, this study aimed at designing and conducting a psychometric analysis of an assessment instrument for innovation capabilities of Medical Sciences Universities using the Cube Model Approach.

Methods: This study began by searching in questionnaires in the fields of input and process, considering innovation outcomes. Accordingly, a preliminary questionnaire was developed, and in the second stage, to determine the validity of the designed instrument, the face validity, content validity, and construct validity of the instrument were approved, and in the third stage, using Cronbach's alpha, its reliability was assessed. At first 200 phrases were obtained, finally, 25 questions were initially approved in three areas of structure (input), innovation processes, and output. All the phrases were retained in the face validity and content validity carried out quantitatively and qualitatively.

Results: Exploratory Factor Analysis was performed on 25 items, and finally the terms were set in six factors. These factors explained 53.19% of the total variance. The rotated factor loading for all questions was obtained more than 0.3, and therefore, no questions were eliminated. Calculation of the Cronbach's alpha coefficient confirmed the high internal consistency of the questionnaire (0.762).

Conclusion: This instrument was designed for the first time in the context of Iranian academic culture and seems to be a suitable instrument for the assessment of innovation capabilities, considering its adequate validity and reliability, simplicity, and practicality.

 

References

1. Goodarzi M, Torabi M, Safdari R, Dargahi H, Naeimi S (2015). Innovation network development model in telemedicine: A change in participation. Healthc Inform Res, 21(4): 265-70.
2. Carlsson B, Jacobsson S, Holmen M, Rickne A (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research policy, 31(2): 233-45.
3. Apak S, Tuncer G, Atay E, Koşan N (2012). Insights from knowledge management to radical innovation: Internet banking applications in the European Union. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41: 45-50.
4. Monograph on the Internet: Radjou N (2006). Innovation networks. Forrester research. www.urenio.org
5. Goodarzi M, Torabi M, Zebardast J et al (2013). Determination of portfolio codes of ethics in innovation management. IJAIEM, 2(8): 137-47.
6. Anonymous (1999). National Innovation Systems. OECD Publishing. Monograph on the Internet. www.oecd.org
7. Monograph on the Internet: Graham R (2013). Technology innovation ecosystem benchmarking study: Key findings from phase 1. MIT Skoltech Initiative. www.rhgraham.org
8. Gheidar-Khaljanij J, Eskandari M, Erabi M (2011). The process and product innovation strategies coordination model based on competitor values framework. Journal of Improvement Management, 2(13): 9-36.
9. Eslami M, Heidania A, Heidarzadeh A et al (2011). Designing and determining validity and reliability of the questionnaire for the effect of HBM on users of two methods of birth control with pills and condoms. Urmia Medical Journal, 21(5): 382-90.
10. Doward LC, Meads DM, Thorsen H (2004). Requirements for quality of life instruments in clinical research. Value Health, 7: S13-16.
11. Frank-Stromborg M (2004). Instruments for clinical health-care research. 3rd ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning, London, pp.: 122-25.
12. Mahmoodi Z, Karimlou M, Sajjadi H et al (2013). Development of mother's life style scale during pregnancy with an approach to social determinants of health. Glob J Health Sci, 5(3): 112-13.
13. Alper H, Bellini F, Bergeron E, Dicern R, Fissel D, Mackinnon P (2010). Imagination to innovation building Canadian paths to prosperity. State of the Science, Technology and Innovation Council. Canada.
14. Arundel A, Kanerva M, Van Cruysen A, Hollanders H (2007). Innovation statistics for the European service sector. 1st ed. Inno Metrics, USA, pp: 1-43.
15. Bramanti A, Tarantola S (2012). Regional Innovation Index, Regional champions within national Innovation Systems. 1st ed. Publication Office of the European Union Inc, Luxembourg, pp: 37-9.
16. Monograph on the Internet: Health DO (2004). The NHS knowledge and skills framework (NHS-KSF) and the development review process. The Stationery Office London. www.ksf.scot.nhs.uk
17. Monograph on the Internet: Hollanders H, Es-Sadki N, Kanerva M (2015). Innovation Union Scoreboard; European Union. www.ec.europa.eu
18. Lopez-Claros A, Mata YN (2010). The Innovation Capacity Index: Factors, Policies, and Institutions Driving Country Innovation. The Innovation for Development Report 2009–2010. 1st ed. Springer Inc, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp: 10-12.
19. Monograph on the Internet: Anonymous (2011). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. www.dx.doi.org
20. Rodionov D, Sedov A (2013). Innovative infrastructure as element ensuring competitiveness in the region. Case study: The Republic Of Mordovia. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal, 1: 163-95.
21. Wright BD, Stone MH (1999). Measurement essentials. 2nd ed. Wide Range, Delaware Inc, Wilmington, pp: 70-6.
22. Wilson HS (1989). Research in nursing. The University of Michigan, Health Sciences. 1st ed. Addison-Wesley Inc, Redwood City, CA, pp: 730-5.
23. Lawshe C (1975). A Quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28: 563-75.
24. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health, 30(4): 459-67.
25. Vakili M, Hidarnia A, Niknami S (2012). Development and psychometrics of an interpersonal communication skills scale among Zanjan health volunteers. Hayat, 18(1): 5-19.
26. Munro BH (2012). Statistical methods for health care research. 6th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Inc, Philadelphie, Penn, pp: 210-12.
27. Polit D, Beck C, Hungler B (2006). Essentials of nursing research: methods, appraisal, and utilization. 2nd ed. Lippincot Williams & Wilkins Inc, Philadelphia, PA, pp: 105-7.
28. Tabatabaein SH, Pakzad M (2006). Investigating innovation assessment systems and providing framework for measuring innovation in Iran. MODARRES HUMAN SCIENCES, 10(1): 161-90.
29. Rizvi NF, Gulzar S, Nicholas W, Nkoroi B (2017). Barriers in adopting blended learning in a Private University of Pakistan and East Africa: faculty members’ perspective. MHealth, 3(1): 18.
30. Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm Sci Q, 35(1): 9-30.
31. Martins E, Martins N (2002). An organisational culture model to promote creativity and innovation. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28(4): 58-65.
32. Soonhee K (2009). Managerial leadership, the climate for creativity and innovation, and a culture of innovation and performance-driven in local government. PMRA conference. Monograph on the Internet. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Managerial-Leadership%2C-the-Climate-for-Creativity%2C-Kim/ce77ecc9f9a1c9d2eaca84a198380ac606180ae3
33. Hess M, Adams D (2007). Innovation in public management: the role and function of community knowledge. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal,12(1): 1-20.
34. O'connor A, Roos G, Vickers-Willis T (2007). Evaluating an Australian public policy organization's innovation capacity. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(4): 532-58.
35. Monograph on the Internet: Alas R, Ubius U, Vanhala S (2011). Connections between organisational culture, leadership and the innovation climate in Estonian enterprises. E-Leader, Vietnam. https://g-casa.com/conferences
36. Ismail A, Ismail M, Abu Samah B et al (2003). Organizational creative climate & learning organization: factors contributing towards innovation within an organization. Pertanika Soc. Sci. & Hum, 11(1): 51-68.
37. Ahmed P, Shepherd C (2012). Innovation management: Context, strategies, systems and processes. 1st ed. Financial Times Press Inc, US, pp: 140-45.
38. Furst‐Bowe JA, Bauer RA (2007). Application of the baldrige model for innovation in higher education. New Directions for Higher Education, 137: 5-14.
39. Burke LA, Neimeyer RA, Holland JM et al (2014). Inventory of complicated spiritual grief: Development and validation of a new measure. Death Stud, 38(1-5): 239-50.
40. Luke DA, Calhoun A, Robichaux CB et al (2014). Peer Reviewed: The program sustainability assessment tool: A new instrument for public health programs. Prev Chronic Dis, 11: 1-12.
41. Burns N, Grove SK (2010). Understanding nursing research: Building an evidence-based practice. 5th ed. Elsevier Health Sciences Inc, St Louis, pp: 340-42.
Published
2020-02-01
How to Cite
1.
TORABI M, SAFDARI R, NEDJAT S, MOHAMMAD K, GOODARZI M, DARGAHI H. Design and Psychometrics of the Assessment Instrument for Innovation Capabilities of Medical Sciences Universities Using the Cube Model Approach. Iran J Public Health. 49(2):323-331.
Section
Original Article(s)