Assessing the factorial structure and internal consistency of the mental fitness and resiliency inventory (MFRI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper explores the use of the mental fitness and resiliency inventory (MFRI) as a tool for the management of workplace health and well-being. The MFRI provides information on the extent to which positive workplace practices are experienced within three mental fitness domains and five resiliency domains. The purpose of this study was to investigate the factorial structure and internal consistency of the MFRI. Design/methodology/approach The MFRI was administered to 1,519 employees in multiple workplace environments in Canada. The factorial structure of the MFRI was examined to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In addition to the CFA indexes, the internal consistency of each latent construct was calculated, with results reported using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Findings The reliability of the MFRI is very high (alpha = 0.973). The fit indexes from the CFA indicate that the model is permissible. The MFRI can be used with confidence to highlight mental fitness and resiliency strengths, as well as areas needing further development in workplace environments. Research limitation/implications Limitations may include the selection of fit indexes upon which to base judgment as to whether the model is satisfactory. Although the MFRI model has been confirmed based on the data from the study sample, there is not yet sufficient data to conclude that the model is a true predictive model. Current and ongoing research will enable elaboration on this matter. In addition, formal documented observations regarding the MFRI's face validity and ease of explanation and understanding of the results may confirm a priori expectations on the part of the users and may strengthen the conclusions from this study. Practical implications Implications for workplaces arising from the validation of the MFRI include a growth in capacity to measure the existence of positive psychology practices within organizational environments and to identify and address areas for needed growth and development. By assessing the prevalence of mental fitness and resiliency practices in workplace environments, reports can be produced that indicate various levels of development and integration of these practices. The application of the MFRI facilitates the use of evidence-informed decision-making in addressing organizational goals related to positive workplace cultures. Originality/value The MFRI is a new, validated instrument that measures the presence of positive practices that contribute to healthy and effective workplace cultures. The results of the MFRI provide workplace health managers with a profile of organizational strengths (practices that are embedded and comprehensive) and areas for development (practices requiring promotion and capacity building) related to mental fitness and resiliency.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".