Pilot Test of a Theory-Based Instrument to Measure Nursing Informatics Leadership Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding organizational cultures helps leaders focus on the content, context and levels of perspective needed to be successful leaders in the area of nursing informatics. The Minnesota Nursing Informatics Leadership Inventory (MNILI) was developed to expand assessment options and tools in the area of nursing informatics leadership. This article describes the result of the pilot test of the instrument. Using an ordinal Likert scale (0 = not like me to 4 = very much like me), respondents rated 12 leadership skills associated with four types of cultures across four scenarios. Respondents preferred collaborative culture leadership skills across all scenarios and differentially preferred culture-specific skills by scenario. Overall, older and more experienced respondents were more satisfied as leaders (p = 0.003) and more often used a democratic leadership approach (empower and care about all voices; p = 0.012). In three of the four cultures, nursing informatics leaders reported preferred and collaborative leadership skills that matched the scenario. This study provides preliminary evidence for using the MNILI to assess the requisite variety of nursing informatics leadership skills. Further research is needed to understand the dynamic interactions between organizational culture and nursing informatics leadership that are informed by conscious leadership and attention to the requisite variety of leadership skills.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".