Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Measures of Psychological Safety

Abstract

Purpose. In a psychologically safe environment, individuals feel safe to share thoughts, acknowledge errors, experiment with new ideas, and exhibit mutual respect. However, there is little consensus on how psychological safety should be measured and the constructs that make up psychological safety. This meta-analysis and systematic review sought to evaluate the quality of measures used to assess psychological safety. Methodology. The meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted using Cochrane’s guidelines as a framework for data synthesis. A total of 217 studies were included in this review. Findings. Across 217 studies, the average internal consistency value ranged from Cronbach’s alpha of .77 to .81, with considerable heterogeneities across samples (I2 = 99.92, Q[221] = 259632.32, p < .001). Together, findings suggest that the quality of existing measures evaluating psychological safety may be acceptable. Originality. There is room for improvement with respect to examinations of factor structures within psychological safety, the degree of association between psychological safety and other constructs, and opportunities for exploring similarities and differences across populations and contexts.