Organizational Change Questionnaire–Climate of Change, Processes, and Readiness: Development of a New Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the basis of a step-by-step procedure (see T. R. Hinkin, 1998 Hinkin, T. R. 1998. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 104–121. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), the authors discuss the design and evaluation of a self-report battery (Organizational Change Questionnaire–Climate of Change, Processes, and Readiness; OCQ–C, P, R) that researchers can use to gauge the internal context or climate of change, the process factors of change, and readiness for change. The authors describe 4 studies used to develop a psychometrically sound 42-item assessment tool that researchers can administer in organizational settings. More than 3,000 organizational members from public and private sector organizations participated in the validation procedure of the OCQ–C, P, R. The information obtained from the analyses yielded 5 climate-of-change dimensions, 3 process-of-change dimensions, and 3 readiness-for-change dimensions.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".