衡量医院环境中的繁文缛节:一项调查实验

IF 2.7 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION International Review of Administrative Sciences Pub Date : 2022-02-02 DOI:10.1177/00208523211073498
J. Luyten, W. Marneffe
{"title":"衡量医院环境中的繁文缛节:一项调查实验","authors":"J. Luyten, W. Marneffe","doi":"10.1177/00208523211073498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public administration research is actively exploring alternatives for the General Red Tape (GRT) scale to measure red tape. Owing to increasing criticism on the GRT scale, scholars proposed the Three-Item Red Tape (TIRT) scale as an alternative. Using a repeated cross-sectional design, this article tests both scales in a before–after analysis of a major change in the organization of administration in a hospital. The results indicate that the GRT scale does not capture the resulting major change in red tape, which raises questions on the instrument's validity in a bottom-up research design within one organization. The TIRT scale, however, which measures red tape at the work environment level, does reflect the change in red tape but shows empirical weaknesses in its design. Additionally, by randomly assigning respondents to substantially different red tape definitions, this article shows that the red tape definition does not significantly impact respondents’ GRT ratings. The predominantly used GRT scale is not able to capture an increase in red tape in a bottom-up intraorganizational research design in a hospital, which raises questions on the instrument's validity. A more recent alternative for the GRT scale, more specifically the TIRT scale, captures the increase in red tape but shows empirical weaknesses. The wording of the red tape definition does not impact respondents’ answers on the GRT scale.","PeriodicalId":47811,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring red tape in a hospital setting: A survey experiment\",\"authors\":\"J. Luyten, W. Marneffe\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00208523211073498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Public administration research is actively exploring alternatives for the General Red Tape (GRT) scale to measure red tape. Owing to increasing criticism on the GRT scale, scholars proposed the Three-Item Red Tape (TIRT) scale as an alternative. Using a repeated cross-sectional design, this article tests both scales in a before–after analysis of a major change in the organization of administration in a hospital. The results indicate that the GRT scale does not capture the resulting major change in red tape, which raises questions on the instrument's validity in a bottom-up research design within one organization. The TIRT scale, however, which measures red tape at the work environment level, does reflect the change in red tape but shows empirical weaknesses in its design. Additionally, by randomly assigning respondents to substantially different red tape definitions, this article shows that the red tape definition does not significantly impact respondents’ GRT ratings. The predominantly used GRT scale is not able to capture an increase in red tape in a bottom-up intraorganizational research design in a hospital, which raises questions on the instrument's validity. A more recent alternative for the GRT scale, more specifically the TIRT scale, captures the increase in red tape but shows empirical weaknesses. The wording of the red tape definition does not impact respondents’ answers on the GRT scale.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Review of Administrative Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Review of Administrative Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211073498\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Administrative Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211073498","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

公共行政研究正在积极探索通用繁文缛节(GRT)量表的替代品,以衡量繁文缛章。由于对GRT量表的批评越来越多,学者们提出了三项繁文缛节(TIRT)量表作为替代。使用重复的横断面设计,本文在医院管理组织的重大变化的前后分析中测试了这两种量表。结果表明,GRT量表没有捕捉到由此产生的繁文缛节的重大变化,这对该工具在一个组织内自下而上的研究设计中的有效性提出了质疑。然而,TIRT量表衡量了工作环境层面的繁文缛节,它确实反映了繁文缛章的变化,但在设计中显示出了经验上的弱点。此外,通过随机将受访者分配到实质上不同的繁文缛节定义,本文表明繁文缛章的定义不会显著影响受访者的GRT评级。在医院自下而上的组织内研究设计中,主要使用的GRT量表无法捕捉到繁文缛节的增加,这引发了对仪器有效性的质疑。GRT量表的最新替代品,更具体地说是TIRT量表,捕捉到了繁文缛节的增加,但显示出了经验上的弱点。繁文缛节定义的措辞不会影响受访者在GRT量表上的回答。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring red tape in a hospital setting: A survey experiment
Public administration research is actively exploring alternatives for the General Red Tape (GRT) scale to measure red tape. Owing to increasing criticism on the GRT scale, scholars proposed the Three-Item Red Tape (TIRT) scale as an alternative. Using a repeated cross-sectional design, this article tests both scales in a before–after analysis of a major change in the organization of administration in a hospital. The results indicate that the GRT scale does not capture the resulting major change in red tape, which raises questions on the instrument's validity in a bottom-up research design within one organization. The TIRT scale, however, which measures red tape at the work environment level, does reflect the change in red tape but shows empirical weaknesses in its design. Additionally, by randomly assigning respondents to substantially different red tape definitions, this article shows that the red tape definition does not significantly impact respondents’ GRT ratings. The predominantly used GRT scale is not able to capture an increase in red tape in a bottom-up intraorganizational research design in a hospital, which raises questions on the instrument's validity. A more recent alternative for the GRT scale, more specifically the TIRT scale, captures the increase in red tape but shows empirical weaknesses. The wording of the red tape definition does not impact respondents’ answers on the GRT scale.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: IRAS is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to academic and professional public administration. Founded in 1927 it is the oldest scholarly public administration journal specifically focused on comparative and international topics. IRAS seeks to shape the future agenda of public administration around the world by encouraging reflection on international comparisons, new techniques and approaches, the dialogue between academics and practitioners, and debates about the future of the field itself.
期刊最新文献
Is bureaucracy ironclad after all? Prevalence and variances of performance- and strategy-oriented management in German local governments A three-model approach to understand social media-mediated transparency in public administrations Board gender diversity in municipally owned corporations: A resource dependence perspective The autonomy and governance of mutual aid organizations for civil servants’ welfare Administrative reforms in Portugal and Spain: From bureaucracy to digital transition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1