Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SLAI measures the seven concepts found in Patterson’s (2003) theory of servant leadership. According to Patterson, the servant leader (a) leads and serves with love (Winston, 2002), (b) acts with humility (Sandage & Wiens, 2001), (c) is altruistic (Kaplan, 2000), (d) is visionary for the followers (Tangney, 2000), (e) is trusting (Hauser and House, 2000), (f) is serving (Wis, 2002), and (g) empowers followers (Covey, 2002). These are the seven constructs that comprise the servant leadership in Patterson’s model. Servant leadership as a theory emerged from Robert Greenleaf’s (1977) work. Recent investigations have expanded servant leadership to include identification and assessment servant leadership factors (Dennis & Bocarnea,2005; Dennis & Winston, 2003; Laub, 1999; Page & Wong, 2000; Patterson, 2003; Russell, 2000; Russell & Stone, 2002). The 42 items of the Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (SLAI) cover a variety of attitudes and behaviors reflective of the aforementioned research. Reliability Research has indicated that the SLAI is internally consistent and reliable. Alpha reliability coefficients ranging from .89 to .92 have been reported (Dennis, 2004) for factors of love, empowerment, vision, and humility. Trust factor, however, has loaded with two items on two second data collections (Dennis, 2004) and one sample (Irving, 2005). The following alpha coefficients were found, measuring servant leadership at the individual leader level: (a) .92 for the SLAI love scale; (b) .92 for the SLAI empowerment scale; (c) .8637 for the SLAI vision scale; and (d) .92 for the SLAI humility scale. A Cronbach alpha coefficient could not be calculated for the SLAI trust scale because it only has two items in the scale (Irving, 2005).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".