Authentic leadership and nurses' voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of the present study was to test a theoretical model linking authentic leadership with staff nurses' trust in their manager, work engagement, voice behaviour and perceived unit care quality. BACKGROUND: Authentic leadership is a guide for effective leadership needed to build trust and healthier work environments because there is special attention given to honesty, integrity and high ethical standards in the development of leader-follower relationships. METHODS: A non-experimental, predictive survey design was used to test the hypothesized model in a random sample of 280 (48% response rate) registered nurses working in acute care hospitals in Ontario. RESULTS: The final model fitted the data acceptably (χ(2)=17.24, d.f.=11, P=0.10, IFI=0.99, CFI=0.99, RMSEA=0.045). Authentic leadership significantly and positively influenced staff nurses' trust in their manager and work engagement which in turn predicted voice behaviour and perceived unit care quality. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that authentic leadership and trust in the manager play a role in fostering trust, work engagement, voice behaviour and perceived quality of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nursing leaders can improve care quality and workplace conditions by paying attention to facilitating genuine and positive relationships with their staff.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it