Six Factor Scale for Leaders

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT BACKGROUND

Context of instrument development/use
This article discussed a multiple-case study which took place in a predominantly African American city in the southern United States and conducted testing with 291 nationwide initiatives representing local initiatives or grassroots citizen ventures. Two quantitative instruments, the Six Factor Scale for Leaders (described here) and the Five Factor Scale for Nonleaders (described in another assessment instrument summary), were developed to assess community capacity. Community capacity often includes “the characteristics of communities that affect their ability to identify, mobilize, and address social and public health problems,” and requires elements such as leadership, networks, resources, and community power.​

Instrument description/purpose
The Six Factor Scale for Leaders assesses the capacity of local public health initiatives for leaders. Leaders were considered to be those who were “central to the initiative’s leadership.” The Six Factor Scale focuses on the following six validated (i.e., factorial) focus areas:

• Leadership
• Resources
• Visibility/recognition
• External networking
• Ability and commitment to organizing action
• Personnel sustainability

The Six Factor Scale for Leaders includes 44 questions with response options using a 10-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “completely.”

The Six Factor Scale for Leaders can be accessed here: https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Six-Factor-Scale-Title-Page-and-Instrument-v2.pdf.

Engagement involved in developing, implementing, or evaluating the assessment instrument
The survey development process that produced the Six Factor Scale for Leaders was preceded by a qualitative multi-case study that took place in a large and predominantly African American city in the southern United States. The qualitative study conducted in-depth interviews with core members of eight community initiatives representing “faith-based or other well-established community organizations or in grassroots voluntary associations.” Three to eight participants from each initiative were engaged. The members were 20-80 years of age and the initiatives ranged from “public health or social issues such as HIV/AIDS, housing quality, violence, and neighborhood improvement.” The findings were verified with the participants and used to develop and refine a 160-item instrument that was reviewed by a panel of “four community-based representatives, seven university-based academicians, and one local advisory board member… [for] clarity, appropriateness, and wording.” The instrument was pilot tested by leaders and nonleaders from communities across the U.S. representing 291 community-based initiatives.

Additional information on populations engaged in instrument use
420 organizations verbally agreed to participate in the pilot test. The final sample included 702 responses from 291 community-based initiatives. “Respondents represented all three levels of participation (Level 1: leaders, n = 251; Level 2: core participants, n = 264; Level 3: peripheral initiative participant, n = 187).”

Notes

• Potential limitations: There are likely a number of community initiatives that operate through volunteer efforts or are understaffed, which may have limited their time and ability to participate in the survey. Additionally, the initial number of items, the request for three respondents per initiative, and the lack of incentives provided to participate may have been prohibitive. These challenges may have influenced participation in the pilot testing or influenced the responses (i.e., respondent fatigue resulting in missing items).
• Important findings: The article highlights that leadership is central to community capacity, “as both [leader and nonleader instruments] indicate unequivocally, competent leadership drives initiative success in achieving a desired vision…It is the leading factor in both [instruments] and contributes more to the variance than all other factors combined.” Additionally, other elements being measured in the instruments (e.g., networking both within the community and externally to the community) reflect the influence that leadership has. Given the complexity of community capacity, triangulation of perspectives may be needed to ensure that the results are holistic and valid.

There is a high degree of congruence across leaders and nonleaders. This is reflected in the fact that 50% (22 out of 44) of the questions for the Six Factor Scale for Leaders and 58% (22 out of 38) of the questions for the Five Factor Scale for Nonleaders are identical.

It is important to note that leaders and nonleaders represent and bring distinct perspectives into the initiatives. As a result, they may focus on different aspects of “capacity.” For example, leaders may be more interested in networking with people external to the community, while nonleaders prefer to network with community members who are most influential. This reflects the need for “similar but separate measurement instruments.”

Moreover, while instruments such as these provide rich information and data to support the measurement of capacity, they cannot fully describe the elements that result in protected or improved community health. End users such as community members, public health practitioners, and consultants should note that a combination of qualitative and quantitative measures are necessary. Scaled instruments can be used as a diagnostic tool and to begin a dialogue with communities about their assets and opportunities to use multilevel and multimethod approaches to “build on those assets for the improvement of communities.” The authors also cautioned foundations against inappropriately using the instruments to determine if a community should receive funding based on the capacities demonstrated by the instruments.

• Future research needed: “Capacity is not solely an internal construct and should be examined from various points of view and at different levels of the socioecologic framework. Exploring external forces on community initiatives will offer another angle from which to view the same socioecologic level as in the current study.” In-depth exploration of community capacity among various community-based organizations is critical, as is continued research on the best measures to assess various dimensions of capacity to allow community-based organizations to identify their strengths and increase their capacity to promote change for their communities