Measuring Work Engagement, Psychological Empowerment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Among Health Care Aides
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
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Health care aides (HCAs) provide most direct care in long-term care (LTC) and home and community care (HCC) settings but are understudied. We validate three key work attitude measures to better understand HCAs' work experiences: work engagement (WEng), psychological empowerment (PE), and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB-O). DESIGN AND METHODS: Data were collected from 306 HCAs working in LTC and HCC, using survey items for WEng, PE, and OCB-O adapted for HCAs. Psychometric evaluation involved confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Predictive validity (correlations with measures of job satisfaction and turnover intention) and internal consistency reliability were examined. RESULTS: CFA supported a one-factor model of WEng, a four-factor model of PE, and a one-factor model of OCB-O. HCC workers scored higher than LTC workers on Self-determination (PE) and lower on Impact, demonstrating concurrent validity. WEng and PE correlated with worker outcomes (job satisfaction, turnover intention, and OCB-O), demonstrating predictive validity. Reliability and validity analyses indicated sound psychometric properties overall. IMPLICATIONS: Study results support psychometric properties of measures of WEng, PE, and OCB-O for HCAs. Knowledge of HCAs' work attitudes and behaviors can inform recruitment programs, incentive systems, and retention/training strategies for this vital group of care providers.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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