The part of this paper was published in poster session presented at Korea Clinical Psychology Association 2017 Spring Conference, May 11-13, Chang-won, Korea.
This study was conducted to validate a Perceived Competence Scale for Disaster Mental Health Workforce (PCS-DMHW) designed to measure the core competences of mental health workers in disaster response situations at individual and organizational levels. core competences essentially required in disaster response situations were defined on the basis of literature review, focus-group interview with disaster response professionals, and expert judgment.
The preliminary items of the PCS-DMHW thus generated were administered to 509 participants consisted of mental health professionals and semi-professionals. The data retrieved from questionnaires were equally divided by two halves. The final items were determined through the exploratory factor analysis of the half data (n=255), and the construct validity was tested by performing the confirmatory factor analysis and criterion-related validity test of the remaining half data (n=254).
Three factors were derived from the individual competences scale; 1) perceived competence of knowledge and skill, 2) ethic, and 3) qualification. And three factors were derived from the organizational competence scale; 1) teamwork, 2) network, and 3) followship.
The PCS-DMHW demonstrated fairly high reliability and validity. Finally, the necessity of continuous validation study and the application modalities of this scale in education and training settings were discussed.
Any large-scale disaster induces fear, panic, sadness, despair or confusion not only to its direct victims and their families, but also to the local community and even the entire country. On the other hand, it also triggers healing-community reaction [
Competence can be to be understood as the effect that “a professional is qualified, capable, and able to understand and do certain things in an appropriate and effective manner” [
The core competences required for disaster response are the elements essential for effective disaster-related task performance. In this regard, the Guidelines for International Trauma Training by ISTSS/RAND [
Many researchers have placed emphasis on the organizational competences of a DMH workforce, such as communication,9,10 leadership at extreme crisis [
Thus far, core competences have been proposed for general healthcare or public health professionals and students, with focuses on psychological support and intervention as well as comprehensive disaster preparedness and response [
Competence can be estimated with a fair degree of accuracy by objectively assessing the level of knowledge or skill-based performance, or by measuring the perceived competence, i.e., competence-related self-efficacy. The DMH competences can be accessed from a multidimensional perspective including a self-report and an observer rating methods and at individual and organizational levels. Perceived self-efficacy is one of the essential components for multidimensional assessment of the DMH competences. Workers with a high perceived competence are more likely to respond efficiently in actual disaster situations than those with a low perceived competence: there is a reciprocal relationship between actual response competence and perceived competence, i.e., the higher the former, the higher the latter [
In Addition, most of the disaster response competence scales measure general competence without differentiating between individual and organizational competences. For example, in the study by Al Thobaity and colleagues [
To sum up, this study pursues two objectives: 1) to develop a PCS-DMHW measuring the DMH workforce’s perceived core competences at both individual and organizational levels and 2) to test the construct validity and criterion-related validity of the PCS-DMHW using the empirical data collected from DMH workforce members.
The participants in this study consisted of 509 mental health professionals, para-professionals, volunteers at disaster site and postgraduate/undergraduate students of the related disciplines. Statistical analysis of all 509 respondents revealed that women outnumbered men (75.25–24.75%) amongst all respondents, the age bracket of 20–29 years was most frequent (43.62%), psychologists had the highest response rate (27.11%), and those with less than five years’ career (n=238, 46.76%) outnumbered those with longer career experience (n=169, 33.20%).
Development process of the PCS-DMHW took place in four steps.
The DMH workforce’s core competences, which are essentially required in disaster response situations, were extracted based on focus group interview (FGI), literature review, and expert judgment by the researchers. A total of 48 participants in the FGI were composed of 9 psychologists, 9 social workers, 6 psychiatrists, 11 nurses, 2 public officials, and 11 volunteers. The volunteers were divided almost evenly between those who had played roles as leaders or team members in disaster sites. Each session of FGI was held with five to six participants for a period of 2–3 hours. The participants reported their experiences of psychological support, disaster site management, case management, delivery of relief goods, or human resource management at disaster sites. They discussed required DMH competences, education or training curriculum and effective education methods at individual and organizational level. Based on analysis of the FGI discussions [
The core competences extracted from the FGI are classified into 9 sub-competences at the individual level and 7 subcompetences at the organizational level. The sub-competences at the individual level are as follows: 1) understanding of the disaster situation: disaster characteristics and survivors’ psychological state; 2) calling, sense of duty and sense of responsibility; 3) ethical and spiritual aspects; 4) self-care: prevention of burnout; 5) problem-solving ability and judiciousness; 6) communication, empathy and counseling ability; 7) information sharing : psychological education, information delivery to survivors, and institutional and practical information such as livelihood support; 8) assistance according to phase, timing, and intended beneficiaries (knowledge of tailored support); and 9) personal qualification of the DMH workers: flexibility, optimism, toughness and resilience. The sub-competences at the organizational level are as follows: 1) cooperation and teamwork; 2) leadership; 3) followship; 4) intra- and inter-organizational communication; 5) conflict management; 6) understanding of the disaster administration system; and 7) utilization of local resources and networking.
Based on the extracted disaster response core competences, preliminary items were written at the individual and organizational levels. Additionally, some items of the current existing measurement tool [
The content validity of the extracted core competences was tested by a panel of experts consisting of 2 psychiatric nurses, 2 psychiatrists, 3 clinical psychologists and 1 mental health social worker. The appropriateness of sub-competences categories and the simplicity and clarity of preliminary items wording were reviewed by the panel. Most of the items represented well the content of their respective subscales, some items were modified reflecting the reviewers’ comments. For example, of the preliminary items at the individual level, “I received education related to psychological assistance in a disaster situation” was modified to “I have received systematic training in psychosocial support in disaster situations.” Also, for the item related to stress coping was added: “I am able to cope with the stress in the disaster site.” One organization-level preliminary item was modified from “I do not dump my duties on others in order not to disturb the organizational order” to “I do not dump my duties on others in a task-performance situation.” Consequently, a total of 99 preliminary items (56 individual competences, 43 organizational competences) were generated. The nine subscales of individual competences can be classified into three knowledge-aspect factors related to how to cope with disaster situations, three skill-aspect factors necessary for disaster response, and three attitudinal factors related to ethic, personal qualification and sense of calling. The seven subscales of organizational competences can be classified into teamwork ability required for smooth cooperation within the team in disaster situations, networking ability to connect local resources or administrative resources, and leadership and followship related to human resource management. Further analysis was performed based on these classifications.
The preliminary items, disaster nursing core competence scale, and Composite capacity indicators (CCI) [
Finally, the construct validity of the PCS-DMHW was assessed by performing the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and correlation analysis with other competence scales on the 254 participants. In addition, scores of the PCS-DMHW were compared according to the level of participants’ disaster response experience. The overall scale development process is presented in
This 15-item tool was developed by Noh [
This scale was developed by Reifels et al. [
The questionnaires were distributed and retrieved mainly at psychiatric clinics, community mental health centers, disaster recovery support centers, mental health-related university departments and academic conferences hall for mental health professionals in Korea. The questionnaire was administered by post or in a face-to-face manner. After signing the informed consent form, participants completed self-report questionnaires that assessed socio-demographic characteristics, career and DMH competences. Respondents needed approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete the developmentstage questionnaire. Among the participants, 40 graduate students were re-tested for PCS-DMHW 2 weeks after the first test.
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) to describe the demographic characteristics of the study participants and to determine the interrelatedness between each subscale and other disaster mental health-related variables.
For EFA, we applied principal axis factoring, which is a factor extraction method less sensitive to non-normal data, and direct oblimin rotation under the assumption of intercorrelations among factors. Parallel analysis and scree plot were used to determine the appropriate number of factors. For the CFA, we established the inter-variable correlations, drawing on the initial theoretical model and the results of the EFA, and tested the model fit. The χ2 test was carried out for model fit analysis. Also used were the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation Index (RMSEA), whereby values ≥ 0.90, ≥0.90, and <0.8, respectively, were considered to be indicative of good fit [
The criterion-related validity was verified by the results of correlation analysis between the PCS-DMHW, CCI and disaster nursing core competence scale. ANOVA was performed to determine the differences in scores of the PCS-DMHW depending on length of career.
EFA was undertaken on all 24 items of the PCS-DMHW at the individual level, consisting of knowledge, skill and attitude. Factors were extracted using principal axis factoring and orthogonalized using direct oblimin rotation under the assumption of inter-correlations among factors. As the criteria for factor extraction, we applied the factor loading cutoff value of 0.30 for a given item and the factor loading difference of ≥0.10 with respect to other items, as proposed by Floyd and Widaman [
In the next step, the results of parallel analysis and scree plot were examined to determine the adequate number of factors, and four was recommended as the number of possible factors.
The EFA was performed on all 21 items of the PCS-DMHW at organizational level, consisting of teamwork, network and human resource management. The results of parallel analysis and scree plot were examined to determine the adequate number of factors, and three was recommended as the number of possible factors.
Cronbach’s α, which expresses the reliability of the total organizational competence scale, was 0.956, and the test-retest reliability coefficient for 2-week interval was 0.624.
The correlations between the subscales of the PCS-DMHW were analyzed and the results are shown in
In another sample of 254, the CFA of the individual/organizational competences scales was performed. The initial theoretical model of the individual competences set out three factors, namely, knowledge, skills and attitude, the EFA yielded a four-factor structure consisting of perceived competence of knowledge and skills, ethic, personal qualification and sense of calling. As shown in
As presented in
While the organizational competences scale comprised three factors of teamwork, network and human resource management in the initial theoretical model, a three-factor structure consisting of competences of team work, network and followship was established as a result of EFA. As shown in
As presented in
The three-factor structure derived from the alternative model was found to have the best fit of χ2 (180)=393.26, p< 0.001, and RMSEA=0.068 (0.059–0.078). A comparative analysis of two models revealed significant differences in the degrees of freedom (1) and χ2 (26.44; χ2 significance level threshold=3.84), thus favoring the alternative model. With a relatively high parsimony and the CFI and TLI values exceeding 0.90, it can be conclusively confirmed that the alternative model is a better fit.
To verify criterion-related validity after categorizing the respondents’ career levels into 1) no career, 2) less than 5 years of career, and 3) at least 5 years of career after obtaining the professional qualification, ANOVA was conducted to compare scores on the PCS-DMHW among these three groups (
In the case of the individual competences, the higher career level group (≥5 years) reported higher perceived competence in the knowledge and skills subscale [F (2,249)= 7.913, p=0.000]. However, there were no significant differences among groups depending on a length of career in the attituderelated subscales. As for the organizational competences, the higher career level group reported higher perceived competence in the teamwork and network competences [F (2,249)= 3.153, p=0.044; F (2,249)=5.407, p=0.005]. However, there were no significant differences among groups depending on a length of career in the followship competence.
This study was conducted to develop and validate the PCS-DMHW, a scale capable of measuring the perceived core competences of DMH workforce members at individual and organizational levels. This self-reported scale includes 24 items classified into four subscales of individual competences (knowledge and skill, ethic, personal qualification, and calling), 27 items classified into three subscales of organizational competences (teamwork, network, and followship), and three items pertaining to one supplementary scale (prevention of burnout).
In the process of testing the content validity of the theoretical model of the PCS-DMHW, the individual competences, which were classified into three sub-competences of DMH support-related knowledge, skills required for disaster response, and essentially required attitudes, were reclassified through EFA into four factors as follows: knowledge and skill were extracted together as a single factor, and attitudes were distinctively categorized into three factors of ethic, characteristic, and calling. These four individual competence factors were also verified by CFA.
The knowledge and skills items within the individual competences scale were extracted into one factor in the EFA. This result suggests that knowledge and skills are regarded theoretically as separate concepts, but the two operated interactively in disaster response situations, instead of independently from each other. Contrary to our expectations, the items pertaining to the subscale “prevention of burnout” as part of individual competences were excluded from analysis because they failed to be grouped together into a single factor and the overall model fit was poor when they were included in the CFA. Despite the insufficient statistical relevance of the ‘prevention of burnout’ subscale, it was decided to retain the related items as a supplementary subscale for future studies in consideration of the absolute importance of preventing of burnout at disaster situations.
As regards the organizational competence scale of the PCS-DMHW, three factors of teamwork, network and followship were found to be appropriate theoretically and empirically fit in both EFA and CFA. Among the organizational competences essential when working at disaster sites, leadership, communication, cooperation and conflict management were grouped together into the factor ‘teamwork’, resource networking and disaster administration into the factor ‘network’, and followship was classified as a separate single factor. In the theoretical model of the PCS-DMHW, leadership and followship were assumed to form one factor related to human resource management, but the leadership factor was included in the teamwork scale measuring communication, cooperation and conflict management in the final model. The ‘teamwork’ scale of the PCS-DMHW is also in good agreement with the findings of previous studies, according to which the most common teamwork component is the informationsharing communication among team members [
Correlation analysis was performed to test discriminant and convergent validity, whereby it was anticipated that subscales within the PCS-DMHW, either individual or organizational, would have higher correlations. While the interscale correlation of the PCS-DMHW was found to be fairly high, the subscales at the individual level showed high positive correlations not only with other individual competences, but also with organizational competences. Interestingly, ‘ethic’ subscale showed lowest correlation with the subscale ‘knowledge and skills’ among all individual competence subscales and relatively high correlations with ‘teamwork’ and ‘followship’ subscales among organizational competences. These suggest that the attitude of respecting survivors’ human rights and providing ethically appropriate care for them in disaster situations is also associated with the capacity to respect colleagues with different backgrounds and cooperate well with them. The organization-level subscales showed relatively high intra-scale correlations. Among the organizational competence subscales, ‘teamwork’ demonstrated relatively high positive correlations not only with ‘network’ and ‘followship’ but also with the individual competence subscales. It suggests that individual and organizational competences are interdependent. A high correlation was also demonstrated between the subscales ‘knowledge and skills’ and ‘network’, which is presumably associated with the actual task performance and role assumption among DMH workforce members in disaster situations.
The PCS-DMHW scores were compared according to the length of career of the participants to verify criterion-related validity. While no significant career-dependent differences were shown in the perceived competences of ‘ethic’, ‘qualification’, ‘a sense of calling’, and ‘followship’, the higher career group (≥5 years after obtaining professional qualification) yielded significantly higher scores in the subscales of ‘perceived knowledge and skills’ and ‘network’ compared with the lower career or no career groups. Given that these two subscales are related to the main tasks and roles of the DMH workforce in disaster situations, it may be assumed that career level has influence on the perceived competence in the actual work-related factors, not in the attitude factor of the DMH workforce members. The higher career level group (≥ 5 years) scored higher in ‘teamwork’ competence as well compared with the lower career level group (<5 years). These results partially support the validity of the PCS-DMHW.
Under the examination as presented above, the PCS-DMHW is successfully measuring perceived individual and organizational competences in the field of DMH. It has demonstrated relatively high reliability and validity. Although the sample utilized in this study is not from a normative dataset of mental health workers in Korea, it seems useful as an indicator of the need for improvement training in DMH competences based upon a standard score (e.g., T-score) drawn from mean and standard deviation of our participants. It should be cautiously suggested that training of the competences for disaster response is needed if the individual competence is less than 31 points or the organizational competence is less than 40 points (35 T-score).
In terms of scale development and construct, however, this instrument has several limitations. First, although the items of the PCS-DMHW, were generated after a thorough investigation through literature review and expert FGI, DMH being an emerging field with a relatively short history, no theoretical and empirical consensus has yet been reached among experts and professionals as to its core competences. Moreover, while there has been relatively extensive research on multidisciplinary teamwork in the medical field, teamwork has attracted little attention in the psychology field except in the subfield of organizational psychology. Therefore, continuous efforts will have to be undertaken to bring about theoretical and conceptual consensus on the core competences required of mental health workers for disaster response respond.
Second, Costello and Osborne [
Third, considering that the minimum number of samples is 50 and that the number of samples should be four- to fivefold the number of variables to be tested as prior conditions generally required for factor analysis, the minimum necessary number of samples for a disaster response core competence scale would be 180–225 (45 items×4–5). Based on this calculation, the number of samples for EFA and CFA was set at around 250 each. However, in the case of CFA, a minimum of 300 participants have been recommended [
Fourth, the PCS-DMHW does not directly measure the knowledge and skills actually required at disaster sites and the ability to work with colleagues. However, it may be considered a useful scale in terms of benefit-cost ratio, given the positive relationship between perceived competence and actual response capacity [
Finally, the PCS-DMHW was developed and validated for Korean mental health workers. Korea has a short history of systematic response to large-scale disasters, and there are a relatively small number of professionals with experience in disaster response. In this study, the respondents’ PCS-DMHW scores were compared after classifying them into three groups according to the length of time after obtaining professional qualifications (no career, <5 years, and ≥5 years). However, it is necessary to compare the PCS-DMHW scores among groups classified according to the degree of experience or actual ability in disaster response in future studies. Also, the discriminant and convergent validity will have to be tested through correlation analysis with other competence scales. The applicability of the PCS-DMHW in other cultures and languages will also have to be investigated.
Despite the above-described limitations, the PCS-DMHW is the only tool known to the researchers for measuring the perceived competences of professionals from various fields and lay health workers in the field of DMH, not limited to specific occupation groups. Furthermore, items of the PCS-DMHW were developed at both individual and organizational levels so that it may be used in various education and training settings. The PCS-DMHW is expected to serve as a useful tool in the education and training programs aiming at developing and strengthening the DMH workforce’s professional capacity.
The online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at
This study was supported by a grant of the Korean Mental Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HM15C1189).
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Conceptualization: Hyae-young Yoon, Yun-Kyeung Choi. Data curation: Hyae-young Yoon. Formal analysis: Hyae-young Yoon. Funding acquisition: Yun-Kyeung Choi. Investigation: Hyae-young Yoon, Yun-Kyeung Choi. Methodology: Hyae-young Yoon. Supervision: Yun-Kyeung Choi. Writing—original draft: Hyae-young Yoon, Yun-Kyeung Choi. Writing—review & editing: Yun-Kyeung Choi.
Factor structure of competence in individual level.
Factor structure of competence in organization level.
Development and validation process of the perceived competence scale for disaster mental health workforce
Step 1 | Concept analysis and item creation | ||
• FGI (N=48): 35 mental health professionals (6 physicians, 9 psychologists, 9 social workers, 11 nurses), 2 public officials, and 11 volunteers | |||
• Literature review and review of the existing scales | |||
- Item Creation and First-order content validity test | |||
- Expert review (2 psychologists) | |||
- Extraction of core competences essential in disaster response situations based on expert judgment | |||
Step 2 | Establishing content validity | ||
• Second-order content validity test | |||
- Expert review (2 psychiatric nurses, 2 psychiatrists, 3 clinical psychologists, and 1 mental health social worker) | |||
- Items modification and preliminary item selection: 56 individual competence items and 43 organizational competence items | |||
• Exploratory factor analysis for preliminary items | |||
- Subjects (N=255): mental health professionals, postgraduate students (nursing, psychology, and social work) | |||
- Factor analysis of the items by subscale to verify the extraction as a single factor | |||
- Extraction of representative items for each subscale (three items each) | |||
Step 3 | Exploratory factor analysis | ||
• Reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis of preliminary items | |||
• Exploratory factor analysis | |||
- Final item selection: 24 individual competence items and 21 organizational competence items | |||
- Analyses: exploratory factor analysis, parallel analysis, correlation analysis, and reliability analysis | |||
Step 4 | Confirmatory factor analysis & criterion-related validity analysis | ||
• Confirmatory factor analysis and other validity tests after the establishment of the final items | |||
- Subjects (N=254): mental health professionals, postgraduate students (nursing, psychology, and social work) | |||
- Construct validity analysis: confirmatory factor analysis | |||
- Criterion-related validity analysis: correlation analysis, ANOVA | |||
Final Scale | |||
• Individual competence scale (24 items) | |||
- 15 knowledge and skill items, 9 attitude items | |||
• Organizational competence scale (21 items) | |||
- 12 teamwork items, 6 network items, 3 followship items | |||
• A supplementary scale: prevention of burnout (3 items) |
Result of exploratory factor analysis: competence in individual level (N=255)
No. | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Perceived ability of knowledge and skill | |||||
Knowledge; tailored support | 17 | 0.037 | 0.152 | -0.094 | |
Skill; information sharing | 4 | -0.112 | 0.070 | 0.008 | |
Skill; information sharing | 20 | -0.005 | 0.046 | 0.066 | |
Skill; information sharing | 33 | 0.098 | 0.000 | -0.024 | |
Knowledge ;understanding of the disaster situation | 54 | -0.090 | 0.024 | -0.186 | |
Skill; problem solving | 9 | 0.088 | -0.117 | 0.073 | |
Skill; communication | 5 | 0.137 | -0.145 | 0.082 | |
Skill; communication | 45 | -0.027 | -0.062 | -0.170 | |
Skill; problem solving | 31 | -0.002 | -0.288 | 0.039 | |
Knowledge; understanding of the disaster situation | 35 | 0.129 | -0.217 | 0.047 | |
Knowledge; understanding of the disaster situation | 30 | -0.028 | -0.196 | -0.07 | |
Skill; communication | 14 | 0.153 | -0.196 | 0.080 | |
Understanding of the disaster situation | 46 | -0.034 | -0.138 | -0.354 | |
Understanding of the disaster situation | 42 | 0.189 | -0.031 | -0.162 | |
Skill; problem solving | 15 | 0.111 | -0.305 | 0.051 | |
2. Attitude; ethic | |||||
Ethic | 12 | 0.159 | 0.082 | 0.029 | |
Ethic | 53 | -0.031 | -0.021 | -0.054 | |
Ethic | 37 | -0.091 | -0.089 | -0.139 | |
3. Attitude; qualification | |||||
Qualification | 27 | -0.013 | 0.014 | -0.055 | |
Qualification | 18 | 0.010 | -0.036 | -0.097 | |
Qualification | 13 | 0.154 | 0.086 | -0.001 | |
4. Attitude; calling | |||||
Calling | 49 | -0.064 | 0.186 | -0.107 | |
Calling | 50 | 0.032 | 0.266 | -0.052 | |
Calling | 48 | 0.347 | -0.073 | -0.096 | |
Eigenvalue | 10.64 | 1.82 | 0.93 | 0.78 | |
Cumulative % | 44.32 | 51.90 | 55.75 | 59.01 | |
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin | 0.940 | ||||
Bartlett’s Sphericity Test | χ2=3891.51 | ||||
Cronbach’s α (total=0.947) | 0.934 | 0.672 | 0.814 | 0.796 | |
Test-retest r (N=40) | 0.637 |
Result of exploratory factor analysis: competence in organization level (N=255)
No. | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Teamwork competency | ||||
Conflict management | 33 | -0.116 | -0.042 | |
Readership | 34 | 0.026 | -0.079 | |
Conflict management | 32 | 0.010 | 0.015 | |
Readership | 40 | 0.100 | -0.071 | |
Cooperation | 39 | 0.016 | 0.089 | |
Conflict management | 17 | -0.026 | 0.069 | |
Organization communication | 27 | -0.032 | 0.144 | |
Organization communication | 43 | 0.217 | -0.095 | |
Cooperation | 35 | -0.070 | 0.358 | |
Readership | 18 | 0.151 | 0.175 | |
Cooperation | 23 | 0.087 | 0.358 | |
Organization communication | 22 | 0.172 | 0.204 | |
2. Network competency | ||||
Linking local resources | 21 | -0.048 | -0.011 | |
Linking local resources | 37 | 0.074 | -0.057 | |
Linking local resources | 3 | 0.007 | 0.378 | |
Disaster administration | 28 | 0.317 | 0.101 | |
Disaster administration | 31 | 0.323 | 0.169 | |
Disaster administration | 24 | 0.243 | 0.198 | |
3. Follow-ship | ||||
Followship | 5 | 0.055 | 0.003 | |
Followship | 4 | 0.127 | -0.065 | |
Followship | 2 | -0.023 | 0.182 | |
Eigenvalue | 11.10 | 1.18 | 0.77 | |
Cumulative % | 52.85 | 58.47 | 62.13 | |
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin | 0.953 | |||
Bartlett’s Sphericity Tes | χ2=3949.99 | |||
Cronbach’s α (total=0.956) | 0.929 | 0.887 | 0.795 | |
Test-retest r (N=40) | 0.624 |
Correlation between disaster mental health competence sub-scales (N=255)
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Competence in individual level | |||||||
1. Perceived ability of knowledge and skill | 1 | ||||||
2. Attitude ; ethic | 1 | ||||||
3. Attitude ; qualification | 1 | ||||||
4. Attitude; calling | 1 | ||||||
Competence in organization level | |||||||
5. Team work | 0.634 |
0.559 |
0.709 |
0.573 |
1 | ||
6. Network | 0.785 |
0.354 |
0.602 |
0.550 |
1 | ||
7. Followship | 0.487 |
0.588 |
0.533 |
0.506 |
|||
Mean | 31.21 | 9.93 | 7.65 | 8.39 | 33.35 | 14.04 | 9.24 |
SD | 10.77 | 1.92 | 2.33 | 2.33 | 7.34 | 4.79 | 2.00 |
p<0.001
Result of confirmatory factor analysis: the disaster mental health competence scale in individual level (N=254)
Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | TLI | CFI | RMSEA | Lo90 | Hi90 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Individual | ||||||||
Theoretical model | 784.32 | 241 | 3.254 | 0.830 | 0.851 | 0.094 | 0.087 | 0.102 |
Alternative model | 602.05 | 246 | 2.447 | 0.891 | 0.903 | 0.075 | 0.068 | 0.083 |
χ2/df=Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio. TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI: Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
Result of confirmatory factor analysis: the disaster mental health competence scale in organization level (N=254)
Model | χ2 | df | χ2/df | TLI | CFI | RMSEA | Lo90 | Hi90 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organization | ||||||||
Theoretical model | 419.70 | 179 | 2.35 | 0.927 | 0.938 | 0.073 | 0.064 | 0.082 |
Alternative model | 393.26 | 180 | 2.19 | 0.922 | 0.933 | 0.068 | 0.059 | 0.078 |
χ2/df=Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square/degrees of freedom ratio. TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index, CFI: Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
Differences of disaster mental health competence scale according to career of the participants (N=252)
None (N=49) |
<5 yr (N=120) |
≥5 yr (N=83) |
F | p | Post hoc (sheffe) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | ||||
Competence in individual level | |||||||||
1. Perceived ability of knowledge and skill | 28.82 | 12.04 | 31.89 | 9.72 | 36.17 | 11.24 | 7.913 | 0.000 | a,b<c |
2. Attitude; ethic | 10.35 | 1.39 | 10.25 | 1.62 | 10.36 | 1.73 | 0.144 | 0.866 | |
3. Attitude; qualification | 8.27 | 2.35 | 7.92 | 1.90 | 8.57 | 2.20 | 2.389 | 0.094 | |
4. Attitude; calling | 8.41 | 2.46 | 8.53 | 2.00 | 8.88 | 2.39 | 0.871 | 0.420 | |
Competence in organization level | |||||||||
5. Team work competency | 34.51 | 7.16 | 33.43 | 6.15 | 35.81 | 6.97 | 3.153 | 0.044 | b<c |
6. Network competency | 13.02 | 5.23 | 14.11 | 4.30 | 15.66 | 4.83 | 5.407 | 0.005 | a,b<c |
7. Follow-ship competency | 9.29 | 4.75 | 9.40 | 1.46 | 9.69 | 1.71 | 0.983 | 0.376 |