A Longitudinal Evaluation of Change Leadership within a Leadership Development Program Context
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 need for individuals capable of leading change has become pronounced based on the changes occurring within the higher education system. The purpose of this study was to examine if participation in the LEAD21 leadership development program, a national leadership program for faculty emerging as leaders in the land-grant university system, changed participant levels of change leadership. The longitudinal analysis included comparisons across members of three classes in the LEAD21 program, as well as the aggregated data from all three years. Results indicated overall level of change leadership rose by an average of 28.8%. Additionally, the study established benchmarks for pre-program and post-program levels of change leadership. Leadership educators can use the results to inform future leadership education initiatives. Furthermore, the study presents a Leading Change Scale that may be appropriate for future leadership program evaluations. Ongoing evaluations of leadership programs are encouraged.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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