Jolita
Vveinhardt
Vytautas
Magnus University, Lithuania
E-mail: jolita.vveinhardt@vdu.lt
Aurelija
Ganusauskaitė
Vytautas
Magnus University, Lithuania
E-mail: aurelija.ganusauskaite@vdu.lt
Submission: 6/24/2020
Accept: 7/30/2020
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is the KEYS
questionnaire cross-cultural adaptation into the Lithuanian language. This
study was designed to translate and perform cultural adaptation as well as test
the reliability of the Lithuanian version of the KEYS questionnaire. Guidelines
for the questionnaire translation and adaptation procedure according to
international recommendations based on scientific literature were followed in
order to establish the cultural equivalence to the original English version of
the KEYS questionnaire. In the cross-cultural adaptation stage, due to the
Lithuanian cultural context, several discrepancies between the semantic and
conceptual equivalence of the items were modified. In total, 155 respondents
participated in the pilot study of the Lithuanian KEYS version. As to
reliability of the Lithuanian KEYS version, psychometric properties were
tested, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to assess the internal
consistency. Mostly all scales and items demonstrated good internal
consistency. The Lithuanian KEYS version was a well-accepted, reliable tool for
evaluating and assessing individual work environment perceptions that influence
the creativity of organizations among the Lithuanian speaking population. We
conclude that the Lithuanian version of the KEYS questionnaire was successfully
translated and adapted for application to Lithuanian-speaking respondents and
it is ready for the validation study. Such a research is the first in the
Baltic region.
Keywords: creativity; KEYS questionnaire;
cross-cultural adaptation and validation; Lithuania
1.
INTRODUCTION
It is stated that
creativity is the key factor determining organizational survival and success.
Researchers analysing organisational creativity accentuate that the phenomenon
organizational creativity is affected by numerous environmental factors and one
of them is the organizational climate (West & Sacramento, 2012). The
measurement of creative and innovative environments may be useful in order to
identify to what degree the organization’s work environment is favourable in
this respect (Mathisen & Einarsen,
2004).
It is clear that there
is a need for instruments to assess the extent to which a particular work
environment promotes organisational creativity and innovation. Moreover, such
research instrument could be the means that helps researchers investigating the
influence of the context on organisational creativity to develop further
research and theory as well as assists practitioners to evaluate the extent to
which the organizational climate promotes employees’ creativity in their
organisation (Amabile, 1995; Amabile et al., 1995, 1996; Amabile, 2012).
Scientific literature
presents well-developed instruments intended for measurement of different
aspects of work environment related to innovation and creativity (Amabile et
al., 1996; Anderson & West, 1994, 1996, 1998; Epstein, Santo &
Guillemin, 2015).
However, few of them
are standardized and validated by well-documented evidence, especially the ones
measuring the dimensions of the work settings with regard to innovation and
creativity. As stated by Mathisen and Einarsen (2004), who studied the research instruments
intended for the assessment of the organisational atmosphere in terms of
innovation and creativity, appropriate research instruments to assess the said
work settings-related determinants have been developed, West’s TCI (Anderson
& West, 1994, 1996) and Amabile’s KEYS (Amabile
et al., 1996) among them.
Mathisen
and Einarsen (2004) conclude that the KEYS
questionnaire and the TCI questionnaire are of sufficient scientific quality
and have high functional value, although can still be improved; i.e., these
questionnaires were used in research by researchers from many countries, and
their research results were published in high quality journals (Agrell & Gustafson, 1994; Kivimäki & Elovainio,
1999; Ensor, Cottam & Band, 2001; Mohamed, 2005; Bosch et al., 2008; Ouwens et al., 2008; Brown et al., 2015; Agreli, Peduzzi & Bailey,
2017; Ramos, Figueiredo & Pereira-Guizzo, 2018; Primus & Jiang, 2019; Lee & Chen,
2020; etc.).
Mathisen
and Einarsen (2004) investigated research instruments
published in the peer-reviewed literature, exploring their psychometric
properties. They found that the KEYS manual was developed with norms that were
based on 78 groups from 50 different organizations (N=12,525) and represented a
wide range of industries. The KEYS scales are characterised by acceptable
factor structures, internal consistencies, high test-retest reliabilities,
tested construct validity, preliminary convergent and discriminant validity (Amabile
et al., 1996).
Besides, having conducted
the meta-analysis of 42 studies on the relationships between the aspects of the
climate in the organisation, Hunter et al. (2007) also pointed out KEYS and
TCI, bearing in mind the findings of contrasting research grounded on
standardized climate inventories (e.g., KEYS, TCI) and on locally developed
ones. According to Hunter et al. (2007), studies employing standardized
research instruments usually make a far bigger impact, compared to locally
developed instruments; therefore, the organisational climate should be studied
using instruments that are well-designed and thoroughly researched.
The growth in the
number of multicultural research, international projects and the like has
determined a rapid increase in the necessity for adaptation of research instruments
in another than the original language. Based on the scientific literature, it
is proposed that researchers should adapt the questionnaire and supplement it
with its validity evidence instead of developing a new questionnaire.
Epstein et al. (2015)
states that adaptation of the research instrument takes less time and may be
equivalent to the original. Beaton et al. (2000) note that cross-cultural
adaptation of the questionnaire not only can save considerable time and effort
but also is the best way to get the equivalent metric and allows
data collection efforts to be the same in cross-national studies (Watson, 2014). The use of established measures
further enables to compare findings in different cultures and conduct
international studies (Van Widenfelt et al., 2005).
Adapted existing
English language questionnaires allow to compare different populations and
exchange information, overcoming cultural and linguistic barriers (Maher,
Latimer & Costa, 2007). Thus, adaptation of assessment instruments enables
to compare research findings in different cultures, facilitating information
sharing among researchers in different countries and decreasing expenses and
time spent for research (Arafat et al., 2016).
2.
OVERVIEW
Scientific literature emphasizes
that, in most cases, instruments can be adapted to another language or culture
and used successfully, in accordance with methodological rules. The term
‘cross-cultural adaptation’ encompasses both linguistic (related to
translation) and cultural adaptation matters when the questionnaire is prepared
to be used in another environment (Beaton et al., 2000).
Cross-cultural adaptation requires
to use a unique method so that the original and the adapted versions of the
questionnaire are equivalent (Arafat et al., 2016). Though there is no
consensus in the scientific literature that summarizes how the instrument
should be adapted for use in a new cultural context, the literature presents
various models of instrument translation and cross-cultural adaptation (Guillemin
et al., 1993; Beaton et al., 2000; Van Widenfelt et
al., 2005; Maher et al., 2007; Gjersing et al.,
2010).
Guidelines described by Beaton, et
al. (2000) is one of the mostly used and practiced guideline (including these
stages: initial translation; combining of translations; re-translation into the
original language; professionals’ group; trying-out of the pre-final
questionnaire version), which was chosen for the particular research.
With the permission of the Centre
for Creative Leadership, the process of adapting the KEYS questionnaire to
Lithuanian culture was started. The Lithuanian version of the KEYS
questionnaire was prepared according to standard strict requirements of the
questionnaire translation and adaptation procedure, following international
recommendations. Based on scientific literature (Guillemin et al., 1993; Beaton
et al., 2000), the process of adapting the questionnaire consisted of six
stages: (1) translating the questionnaire from the original – English –
language to Lithuanian, (2) synthesis of translated versions, (3) back
translation, (4) experts’ evaluation, (5) testing the questionnaire with the
target population, and (6) testing, calculating psychometric indicators. The
short presentation of the KEYS questionnaire and the description of the whole
process of translating and adapting the KEYS questionnaire in Lithuania are
given below.
3.
MATERIAL, METHODS AND PROCEDURE
3.1.
KEYS: Assessing the Climate for
Creativity
The KEYS work environment inventory
(Amabile et al., 1996) is a validated instrument that has been used most widely
in the domain of organizational creativity research. As noted earlier, the KEYS
appears to have acceptable scientific quality as well as high utilitarian value
(Mathisen & Einarsen,
2004), which is why the instrument was chosen for cross-cultural adaptation in
the Lithuanian language.
KEYS is aimed at measuring
individual work environment perceptions that influence the creativity of
organizations. This instrument is a quantitative assessment tool and it is a
revised version of the organisational settings questionnaire developed by
Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1989). The KEYS research
instrument and the fundamental conceptual model were created seeking to obtain
a well-founded method for adequate assessment of various dimensions of work
environment before theoretical and empirical work was proposed. Besides, the
conceptual model of Amabile et al. (1996) reflects other significant
theoretical and research evidence, such as the organizational creativity model
of Woodman et al. (1993) and empirical findings of Scott and Bruce (1994).
The KEYS environment scales are
grounded on the component-based model of organisational creativity and
innovation and offer five conceptual groups (promotion of creativity,
independence or free will, supplies, pressures and organisational barriers to
creativity). The description of these scales and their corresponding dimensions
are presented in Figure 1.
The research instrument includes 78
statements grouped into eight scales reflecting various aspects of the
organisational environment and two scales representing employee creativity and
work efficiency. Six scales related to the organisational environment name
stimuli of creativity, which, according to the authors, positively influence work
outcomes. These are independence, positive challenge, active support of
supervisors, team support, organizational promotion and adequate resources. The
two remaining scales of the organisational environment generalise what hinders
creativity and, according to the authors, has a negative effect on creativity
at work, namely, organisational hindrances and heavy workload.
The KEYS instrument was designed as
a measure for the development of research and theory, especially in the field
of the influence of the work environment on employees’ creativity in
organisations. Mathisen and Einarsen
(2004) state that the KEYS instrument is of acceptable quality and is widely
described in peer-reviewed journals. The KEYS instrument includes a manual with
norms based on 78 groups from 50 different organizations (N=12,525),
representing a wide range of industries, and instructions for use (Amabile et
al., 1999). The KEYS scales are acceptable with regard to factor structures,
internal consistencies, high test-retest reliabilities, tested construct
validity, preliminary convergent and discriminant validity (Amabile et al.,
1996).
Figure 1: The KEYS environment scales and their
dimensions
Source: Amabile et al. (1996)
The process of adapting and
validating the KEYS instrument in Lithuania is given below. The cross-cultural adaptation of
the KEYS questionnaire into the Lithuanian language was based on the works of
the following authors: Dihle, Helseth and Christophersen (2008), Heeren et al.
(2011), Alqarni et al. (2018) and others.
3.2.
Translation and Cultural Adaptation
Translation,
synthesis and back translation. Firstly, translations of the questionnaire into the Lithuanian
language were performed. Two independent professional translators, whose first
languages were Lithuanian, were selected for this stage. They presented two
original versions of the Lithuanian KEYS questionnaire. Based on Gjersing, Caplehorn and Clausen
(2010), two versions of the translation were reviewed in a joint meeting
attended by the third independent translator, who had knowledge on the
methodology of the questionnaire.
The review constituted synthesising of two versions, forming one integrated variant. When translators reconciled differences in translations, the Lithuanian version of the KEYS questionnaire was completed. Then, a native speaker of English translated this reconciled version back into the original language. Three independent translators and the native speaker of English each submitted their written reports on every version of the translation, giving their remarks and substantiation why one or another variant should or should not be used.
All the reports were submitted to
the experts’ committee.
The
experts’ committee.
The Lithuanian version of the KEYS questionnaire was submitted for review to
the experts’ committee. The experts’ committee consisted of four experts, two
of whom were scientists and two practitioners. The experts were selected
purposefully according to their field of expertise, scientific expertise and
competencies. All four experts fluent in both written English and written
Lithuanian. The experts’ committee was formed for external
(face and content) validity in order to assess all variants of translations and
to examine the report comments.
The experts
were asked to check the conformity of the translated version with the original version
and the precision of the Lithuanian items. The aim was to clarify items,
relevance to linguistic and cultural aspects (style, formatting and
comprehensibility, consistency, clarity and suitability of the language used in
Lithuanian culture). The experts identified the words or items that raised
doubts or uncertainties, established their causes and gave proposals for
reformulating vague terms. Besides, the experts also checked the accuracy of
the Lithuanian KEYS against the original English KEYS. Experts also checked the
accuracy of the Lithuanian KEYS against the original English KEYS.
An evaluation form has been
developed and presented to facilitate the procedure for the experts to evaluate
each item according to the Likert scale from 1 to 4. The experts independently
evaluated suitability of each item of the questionnaire. Four evaluation forms
of questionnaire validation were received. Then, each expert was interviewed
individually. According to Lynn’s (1986) methodology, the content validity
index (CVI) was calculated for questionnaire scales and single items.
Corrections
of the synthesis of translations after the evaluation performed by the experts’
committee. Upon the
analysis of initial translations, the experts’ committee submitted
recommendations for corrections. During the discussion, the places of the
questionnaire that were the most distant from the original were noted. After
this stage, incorrect or unclear stylistics of the statements was identified,
incorrectly translated terms and some grammatical errors were found.
Moreover, several discrepancies
between the semantic and conceptual equivalence of the questionnaire were
highlighted. The evaluation and review were followed by a discussion in the
committee on all details until the consensus was reached on all discrepancies;
the pre-final version of the Lithuanian KEYS questionnaire was formulated.
Testing
with the sample of the target population. The pre-final version of the Lithuanian KEYS
questionnaire was tested with the sample of 7 practitioners of different ages,
working in different business fields, who are native Lithuanian speakers. The
aim was to ensure that all content is under-stood and to assess the general
comprehension of items. The problems encountered were related to phrasing, intelligibility
and suitability. Some statements in the synthesized and reconciled version were
changed to improve cultural awareness. In this stage, the focus was on the
assessment of usability of the Lithuanian KEYS questionnaire version.
After completing all stages of
cross-cultural adaptation, the final Lithuanian version of the KEYS
questionnaire was prepared for the pilot study.
3.3.
Statistical
analysis and psychometric properties
Procedure
and data collection.
In accordance with published guidelines (Guillemin et al., 1993; Beaton et al.,
2000), the final Lithuanian version of the KEYS questionnaire was submitted to
the pilot study after translation and cultural adaptation for use with
Lithuanian speaking populations. The Lithuanian version of the KEYS questionnaire
was placed on an online survey platform and a pilot study was conducted. The
aim of the pilot study was initial evaluation of reliability of the Lithuanian
KEYS version. The survey was conducted by completing a questionnaire on the
Internet using the public survey platform ‘www.apklausk.lt’. The pilot study
was conducted in January-March, 2018, and the data were processed using the
SPSS software.
Participants. The study was conducted with 155
respondents who had Lithuanian citizenship and worked in various Lithuanian
organizations in both, i.e. public and private sectors, mainly full-time
employees. The sample (N=155) was selected using convenience sampling, when the
working situation (employment) at the time of conducting the study was an important
selection criterion.
Psychometric
assessments and statistical analysis. The reliability of the questionnaire was
evaluated using the following psychometric parameters: descriptive statistics
was used to establish the demographic and other characteristics of the
participants assessed and Cronbach’s alpha, to assess internal consistency. The
psychometric characteristics of questionnaire are presented in detail below.
4.
RESULTS
Participants’
characteristics. In
total, 155 respondents (40 (25.8 %)) men and 115 (74.2 %) women) participated
in the validation of the Lithuanian KEYS version. The participants’ demographic
and other characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The majority of the
participants were from large organizations with more than 250 employees (57
(36.8 %)); others, from medium organizations with less than 250 employees (38
(24.5 %)); from small organizations with less than 50 employees (39 (25.2 %));
and from very small organizations with less than 10 employees (21 (13.6 %)).
Participants were from the public sector (61 (39.3%)) and the private sector
(94 (60.7 %)) (these data are not shown).
Table 1: Participants’ demographic and other
characteristics
|
Characteristics |
Total (N=155) |
|
Women, n (%) |
115 (74.2) |
|
Men, n (%) |
40 (25.8) |
|
Age, n (%) |
|
|
From 18 to 25
years |
34 (21.9) |
|
From 26 to 30
years |
40 (25.8) |
|
From 31 to 40
years |
54 (34.8) |
|
From 41 to 50
years |
12 (7.7) |
|
Over 51 years |
15 (9.7) |
|
Total work experience, n (%) |
|
|
From 0 to 1 years |
5 (3.2) |
|
From 1 to 5 years |
45 (29.0) |
|
From 6 to 10 years |
33 (21.3) |
|
From 11 to 15
years |
39 (25.2) |
|
From 16 to 20
years |
8 (5.2) |
|
Over 20 years |
25 (16.1) |
|
Note:
Values are presented in count (percentage). |
|
Internal
consistency. Table
2 displays the internal consistency indices of the
Lithuanian KEYS version scales
and original KEYS version scales. Cronbach alpha coefficient (Cronbach,
1951): the closer the Cronbach alpha coefficient values to 1, the stronger the
internal consistency of the questionnaire dimensions (Vveinhardt,
Fominiene, Streimikiene,
2020). The internal consistency of the Lithuanian KEYS version scales was good with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.66 to 0.94, with a median of 0.89.
The psychometric properties of the Lithuanian KEYS version are nearly the same
as of the original KEYS version conducted by Amabile et al. (1996), where
Cronbach’s alpha varied from minimally acceptable (0.66) to extremely strong
(0.91), with a median that is quite good (0.84). Only the ‘Freedom’ scale showed
internal reliability lower than 0.70 as measured by Cronbach alpha in both
Lithuanian and original version.
Table 2: Internal
consistency of the Lithuanian KEYS version
|
Scales |
No. of items |
|
|
Alpha LT (N=155) |
Alpha KEYS (N=12,100) |
|
Freedom |
4 |
|
|
0.66 |
0.66 |
|
Challenging work |
5 |
|
|
0.76 |
0.79 |
|
Supervisory
encouragement |
11 |
|
|
0.93 |
0.91 |
|
Work group
supports |
8 |
|
|
0.92 |
0.86 |
|
Organizational
encouragement |
15 |
|
|
0.94 |
0.91 |
|
Organizational
impediments |
12 |
|
|
0.93 |
0.84 |
|
Sufficient
resources |
6 |
|
|
0.88 |
0.83 |
|
Workload pressure |
5 |
|
|
0.85 |
0.77 |
|
Creativity |
6 |
|
|
0.87 |
0.84 |
|
Productivity |
6 |
|
|
0.89 |
0.86 |
Based
on the results, it can be stated that all scales, except for the ‘Freedom’
scale, have good internal reliability (values > 0.7) and do not require
additional adjustments to the questionnaire items. This is confirmed by the
analysis of the homogeneity of scale statements, which was calculated using
Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Calculations of correlations between the
estimates of each scale’s items were identified as follows (see Table 3).
Additional
results of scale reliability analysis related to internal consistency and Cronbach
alpha are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Additional
results related to internal consistency of Lithuanian KEYS version
|
|
Cronbach alpha |
95% Confidence Interval |
Inter-Item Correlations |
|||
|
Scale |
Lower Bound |
Upper Bound |
Mean |
Min |
Max |
|
|
Freedom |
0.66c |
0.56 |
0.74 |
0.33 |
0.14 |
0.47 |
|
Challenging work |
0.76c |
0.69 |
0.81 |
0.39 |
0.22 |
0.54 |
|
Supervisory
encouragement |
0.93c |
0.92 |
0.95 |
0.56 |
0.32 |
0.80 |
|
Work group
supports |
0.92c |
0.89 |
0.93 |
0.57 |
0.45 |
0.75 |
|
Organizational
encouragement |
0.94c |
0.93 |
0.96 |
0.53 |
0.36 |
0.72 |
|
Organizational
impediments |
0.93c |
0.91 |
0.94 |
0.51 |
0.27 |
0.87 |
|
Sufficient
resources |
0.88c |
0.85 |
0.91 |
0.56 |
0.36 |
0.75 |
|
Workload pressure |
0.85c |
0.81 |
0.88 |
0.52 |
0.36 |
0.86 |
|
Creativity |
0.87c |
0.84 |
0.90 |
0.53 |
0.41 |
0.69 |
|
Productivity |
0.89c |
0.87 |
0.92 |
0.59 |
0.42 |
0.78 |
Confidence
limits of Cronbach alpha coefficients allow us to evaluate expected
coefficients’ values in the target population at the usual 95% confidence
level. Lower bounds show that only reliabilities of freedom and challenging
work scales could be unsatisfactory in the population, maybe less than 0.7 or
even 0.6, but not necessarily, as upper bounds show. These two scales not only
have relatively low Cronbach alpha coefficients, their average inter-item
correlations also are obviously lower than those of the other scales. Internal
reliability of remaining eight scales, according to alpha coefficients together
with their confidence intervals, could be safely placed above 0.7 and probably
even above 0.8 in the population. Minimal inter-item correlations are at least
positive for all the scales.
5.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
In the current
study, as recommended, guidelines according to international recommendations
were employed in order to adapt the questionnaire culturally so that the
Lithuanian KEYS version is of good quality and equivalent to its original
version. Firstly, several statements and illustrations in the adapted variant
were changed as this was required due to the Lithuanian cultural dimensions. The main issues in the translation
and cross-cultural adaptation stages were to assess the differences between American and
Lithuanian cultures with a particular focus on linguistic differences. In this
stage, incorrect or unclear style of the items and incorrectly translated terms
were identified, some grammatical errors were found. During
the evaluation of the experts’ committee, several discrepancies between the semantic and conceptual equivalence of
the questionnaire were highlighted. The majority of them
were insignificant, related to the choice of a synonymous word. Some essential intercultural
semantic inconsistencies and their adjustments are given below.
For
example, in order not
to mislead respondents who work in the organization with a hierarchical
structure, in the items of the ‘Supervisory encouragement’ scale, the term ‘boss’ was replaced with ‘direct
supervisor’. The revised statements aim to evaluate the respondent's direct
supervisor, this way avoiding ambiguity that top management may be considered.
Following the experts’ opinion, the term ‘work group’ was complemented with the
additional word ‘team’. In the Lithuanian version of the KEYS
questionnaire, the term ‘project’ was rejected as it was observed that in
Lithuanian business culture, project activity was identified as a specific
area. Therefore, this term was replaced with ‘work’, the semantic and
conceptual meaning of which corresponds to the definition of the American term
‘project’. As the terms ‘boss’, ‘project’ and ‘work group’ were specified, the
descriptions of the key terms in the beginning of the questionnaire were
refused.
The
problem areas also occurred on the ‘Productivity’ scale, where American terms
‘effective’ and ‘efficient’ were used. It was noted that these terms in the
Lithuanian language and culture revealed different aspects. For example, the
semantic meaning of the American term ‘efficient’ in the Lithuanian language is
more closely reflected by the meaning of the term ‘effective’. This is a
mismatch of semantic equivalence when the term is translated properly but implies
another aspect in another culture. Therefore, the translated version of the
statement was inappropriate in the adapted Lithuanian culture, and based on the
experts' opinion and experience, Lithuanian equivalents were selected and the
adjustments near the items were provided.
In
accordance with published guidelines (Guillemin et al., 1993; Beaton et al., 2000), the KEYS questionnaire was submitted to the
validation process after translation and cultural adaptation for use with
Lithuanian speaking populations. As regards reliability and validity of the
Lithuanian KEYS version, the psychometric properties were tested: Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient to assess the internal consistency. Mostly all scales
demonstrated good internal reliability, only freedom and challenging work
scales require improvement, maybe by adding more items.
However,
further studies are needed to investigate the use of the adapted KEYS version
in Lithuania to determine the validity in different industries. If the
Lithuanian KEYS version produces stable and consistent results over time, it
could also be tested by assessing test-retest reliability. More extensive
studies of the Lithuanian KEYS version are necessary to develop normative data
among the Lithuanian speaking population.
6.
CONCLUSION
The
aim of the present study was to translate the KEYS questionnaire and adopt to
the Lithuanian speaking population. The choice of the KEYS questionnaire was
based on its acceptable scientific quality as well as high utilitarian value (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004).
This study demonstrated that the Lithuanian version of the KEYS questionnaire
was well-accepted among Lithuanian-speaking respondents and the scales
demonstrated good internal consistency, enabling researchers to estimate the
individual work environment perceptions influencing creativity of organizations
in the Lithuanian speaking sample. The Lithuanian version of the KEYS
questionnaire is easy, understandable and relevant for Lithuanian culture, it
is a reliable tool, the results showed that the Lithuanian version of the KEYS
questionnaire had good internal consistency. It is to be noted that this is the
first and so far, the only available reliable questionnaire in Lithuania
assessing work environment for creativity and innovation.
7.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank Teresa M.
Amabile. KEYS items were used with the permission of Teresa M. Amabile, Ph.D.,
and the Centre for Creative Leadership.
REFERENCES
Agreli,
H. F., Peduzzi, M., & Bailey, C. (2017).
Contributions of team climate in the study of interprofessional
collaboration: A conceptual analysis. Journal
of Interprofessional Care, 31(6), 679-684. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1351425
Agrell, A.,
& Gustafson, R. (1994). The Team Climate Inventory (TCI) and group
innovation: A psychometric test on a Swedish sample of work groups. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 67(2), 143-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00557.x
Alqarni,
A. M., Vennu, V., Alshammari,
S. A., & Bindawas, S. M. (2018). Cross-cultural
adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the Physical Activity Scale
for the Elderly among community-dwelling older adults in Saudi Arabia. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 13,
419-427. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S157007
Amabile,
T. A. (2012). Componential Theory of
Creativity. Harvard Business School. Working Paper. 12-096, April 26, 2012.
Amabile, T.
M. (1995). KEYS: Assessing the climate
for creativity. Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Amabile, T. M., Burnside, R. M., & Gryskiewicz,
S. S. (1995). User’s Guide for KEYS:
Assessing the Climate for Creativity. Greensboro: Centre for Creative
Leadership.
Amabile, T. M., Burnside, R. M., & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1999). User's manual for KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity: A survey from the Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Amabile,
T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron,
M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184. https://doi.org/10.5465/256995
Amabile,
T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The
creativity environment scales: Working environment inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4),
231-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400418909534321
Anderson,
N. R., & West, M. A. (1994). The team climate inventory manual and users’ guide. Windsor: Assessment Services for
Employment/NFER-Nelson.
Anderson,
N. R., & West, M. A. (1996). The team climate inventory: The development of
the TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 5(1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414840
Anderson,
N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation:
development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3),
235-258. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-C
Arafat,
S. M., Chowdhury, H. R., Shalahuddin Qusar, M. M. A., & Hafez, M. A. (2016). Cross Cultural
Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of Research Instruments: a
Methodological Review. Journal of Behavioral Health, 5(3), 129-136. https://dx.doi.org/10.5455/jbh.20160615121755
Beaton,
D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz,
M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of
self-report measures. Spine, 25(24),
3186-3191. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
Bosch,
M., Dijkstra, R., Wensing, M., Van Der Weijden, T., & Grol, R.
(2008). Organizational culture, team climate and diabetes care in small
office-based practices. BMC Health
Services Research, 8, Article number: 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-180
Brown,
J. B., Ryan, B. L., Thorpe, C., Markle, E. K. R.,
Hutchison, B., & Glazier, R. H. (2015). Measuring Teamwork in Primary Care:
Triangulation of Qualitative and Quantitative Data. Families Systems & Health, 33(3), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000109
Cronbach,
L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16,
297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Dihle,
A., Helseth, S., & Christophersen,
K. A. (2008). The Norwegian version of the American pain society patient
outcome questionnaire: reliability and validity of three subscales. Pain Management, 17(15), 2070-2078.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02142.x
Ensor,
J., Cottam, A., & Band, C. (2001). Fostering knowledge management through
the creative work environment: a portable model from the advertising industry. Journal of Information Science, 27(3),
147-155. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016555150102700304
Epstein,
J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for
cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a
consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(4), 435-441. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021
Gjersing,
L., Caplehorn, R. M. J., & Clausen, T. (2010).
Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: Language, setting, time and
statistical considerations. BMC Medical
Research Methodology, 10, Article number: 13. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-13
Guillemin,
F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of
health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed
guidelines. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417-1432. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N
Heeren,
A., Douilliez, C., Peschard,
V., Debrauwere, L., & Philippot,
P. (2011). Cross-cultural validity of the Five Facets Mindfulness
Questionnaire: Adaptation and validation in a French-speaking sample. Validité transculturelle du Five
Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire: adaptation et validation auprès
d’un échantillon francophone. European Review of Applied Psychology, 61(3), 147-151.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2011.02.001
Hunter,
S., T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate
for Creativity: A Quantitative Review. Creativity
Research Journal, 19(1), 69-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410709336883
Kivimäki,
M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A shorter version of
the Team Climate Inventory: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 72(2), 241-246. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166644
Lee,
J. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2020). Exploring the team dynamic learning process in
software process tailoring performance A theoretical perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 33(3), 502-518. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0266666917724194
Lynn,
M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382-385.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
Maher,
C. G., Latimer, J., & Costa, L. O. P. (2007). The relevance of
cross-cultural adaptation and clinimetrics for
physical therapy instruments. Brazilian
Journal of Physical Therapy, 11(4),
245-252. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-35552007000400002
Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen,
S. (2004). A Review of Instruments Assessing Creative and Innovative
Environments within Organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1601_12
Mohamed,
M. (2005). Factors affecting organisational creativity and innovativeness in
Egyptian business organisations: an empirical investigation. Journal of Management Development, 24(1),
7-33. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710510572326
Ouwens, M.,
Hulscher, M., Akkermans, R.,
Hermens, R., Grol, R., &
Wollersheim, H. (2008). The Team Climate Inventory:
application in hospital teams and methodological considerations. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 17(4),
275-280. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2006.021543
Primus,
D. J., & Jiang, C. X. (2019). Crafting better team climate: the benefits of
using creative methods during team initiation. International Journal of Technology Management, 79(3-4), 299-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2019.099606
Ramos,
M. A. W., Figueiredo, P. S., & Pereira-Guizzo, C. (2018). Antecedents of innovation in industry:
The impact of work environment factors on creative performance. Innovation & Management Review, 15(3),
269-285. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-05-2018-0032
Scott,
S., & Bruce, R. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior:
A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256701
Van Widenfelt, B. M., Treffers, P. D.
A., De Beurs, E., Siebelink,
B. M., & Koudijs, E. (2005). Translation and Cross-Cultural
Adaptation of Assessment Instruments Used in Psychological Research With
Children and Families. Clinical Child
and Family Psychology Review, 8), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-005-4752-1
Vveinhardt, J., Fominiene,
V. B., Streimikiene, D. (2020). A new tool
contributing to the management of bullying and harassment in higher education
institutions. Polish Journal of
Management Studies, 21(2), 446-461. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2020.21.2.31
Watson, K. B. (2014) Categorical Data Analysis. In: Michalos
A. C. (eds) Encyclopedia of
Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer, Dordrecht.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_291
West, M., & Sacramento, C. (2012). Creativity and innovation: the role of team
and organizational climate. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp.
359-385). London (UK): Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3.00015-X
Woodman,
R., Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R. (1993). Toward a Theory of Organizational
Creativity. The Academy of
Management Review, 18(2), 293-321. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258761