Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is first attempt to validate the spirituality at work scale developed by Kinjerski & Skrypnek (2006) in Indian context as so far it has been primarily tested successfully in US, Canada and Thailand. A questionnaire-based survey was designed for data collection from employees working in IT and ITES sectors in Delhi-NCR. The sampling technique followed for this study was purposive sampling. Confirmatory Factor Analysis using AMOS version 20.0 was conducted to test the validity and reliability of the factorial structure of workplace spirituality. The findings show that only a part of scale developed in western country was found appropriate along with an additional measure of organizational spirituality. The scale demonstrated adequate statistical reliability and validity, producing excellent fit for the overall SAW measurement model. The study was able to produce strong empirical evidence for confirmation of SAW as a higher order latent construct, which is important considering that these findings may help in acceptability of workplace spirituality in academics and practice. As the scale demonstrated good discriminant & convergent validity and acceptable internal consistency; scholars using this scale for future researches can be confident about the accuracy of the scale in capturing the intricate and ethereal essence of workplace spirituality. This paper is probably the first attempt of validating the spirituality at work scale in Indian work settings, thereby an important contribution towards advancing the measurement development for the field of workplace spirituality.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".