Evaluating Organizational Readiness for Change: A Preliminary Mixed-Model Assessment of an Interprofessional Rehabilitation Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a Functional Organizational Readiness for Change Evaluation (FORCE) to assess the characteristics of readiness for change across two programs (N=216 employees) in an interprofessional rehabilitation hospital that was about to undergo strategic changes as part of a planned physical merger within the next two years. The study used a mixed-method approach: a quantitative survey, previously validated in a drug rehabilitation setting, followed by key informant interviews to further enlighten survey findings. Statistical analyses identified correlations between demographic variables (age, education and experience) and readiness for change, as well as the prevalence of specific organizational characteristics (motivation for change, access to resources, staff attributes, organizational climate, and exposure/ use of training opportunities) that facilitate or impede change. Findings were intended to better inform the tactics for successful implementation of upcoming initiatives. Much like assessing a patient prior to initiating a treatment, FORCE can serve as a management tool to direct the planning and implementation of changes intended to improve hospital performance.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".