How Well Does the CWEQ II Measure Structural Empowerment? Findings from Applying Item Response Theory
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
The main purpose of this paper is to examine the psychometric properties of the original five-point CWEQ II using Item Response Theory (IRT) methods, followed by an examination of the revised three-point CWEQ II. (1) Background: The psychometric properties of the CWEQ II have not been previously assessed using more robust techniques such as IRT. (2) Methods: This is a secondary analysis of baseline data from 1067 staff nurses whose leaders had attended a leadership development program. Data were analyzed using a polytomous IRT model. (3) Results: The two versions of CWEQ II fit the SE data equally as each had only one poor-fitting item. For the five-point CWEQ II, discriminant ability was poor for a majority of the items; one item demonstrated a disordinal step difficulty parameter; and item reliability was supported for a relatively wider range of SE levels. The discriminant ability and reliability of items for the three-point CWEQ II was better than those of the five-point CWEQ II, but for a narrower range of SE levels; and the disordinal step difficulty parameter was resolved. (4) Conclusion: The appropriate use of each version of the scale depends on the conditions of the work setting targeted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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