« Back to Assessment Instruments
Qualitative/Quantitative:
Type of Instrument:
Number of Items:
105Subscale Information:
Culture measures:
Proficiency
Rigidity
Resistance
Climate measures:
Engagement
Functionality
Stress
Other measure:
MoraleLanguage Availability:
Brief Description:
The Organizational Social Context (OSC) Measure is an extensively researched, nationally-normed and psychometrically proven measures of cultures and climates of child welfare and mental health organizations. The measure is used to assess and track over time, the cultures and climates of the organizations in which they are conducting their studies. It has also been used effectively in a growing list of other settings, including substance abuse and 12-step programs, homeless shelters, child and adult autism services, nursing homes, hospitals and hospital emergency rooms, and crisis stabilization units.Website:
Citing Literature - Development/Original:
Glisson, C., Landsverk, J., Schoenwald, S., Kelleher, K., Hoagwood, K. E., Mayberg, S., Green, P., & Research Network on Youth Mental Health (2008). Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: implications for research and practice. Administration and policy in mental health, 35(1-2), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-007-0148-5. PMID: 18085434.Citing Literature - Empirical Use/Application:
Aarons, G. A., Glisson, C., Green, P. D., Hoagwood, K., Kelleher, K. J., Landsverk, J. A., Research Network on Youth Mental Health, Weisz, J. R., Chorpita, B., Gibbons, R., Glisson, C., Green, E. P., Hoagwood, K., Jensen, P. S., Kelleher, K., Landsverk, J., Mayberg, S., Miranda, J., Palinkas, L., & Schoenwald, S. (2012). The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: a United States national study. Implementation science : IS, 7, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-56. PMID: 22726759; PMCID: PMC3444886.
Glisson, C., Green, P., & Williams, N. J. (2012). Assessing the Organizational Social Context (OSC) of child welfare systems: implications for research and practice. Child abuse & neglect, 36(9), 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.06.002. PMID: 22980071.Version:
Not Found
Glisson’s Organizational Social Context (OSC)
Qualitative/Quantitative:
The assessment instrument uses quantitative and/or qualitative data
- Quantitative
Type of Instrument:
The type of the assessment instrument
- Survey
Number of Items:
Number of items in the assessment instrument
105Subscale Information:
Names of each of the subscales and the number of items for each of the subscales
Culture measures: Proficiency
Rigidity
Resistance
Climate measures:
Engagement
Functionality
Stress
Other measure:
Morale
Language Availability:
Language(s) in which the assessment instrument is available
- English
Brief Description:
Brief summary description of assessment instrument
The Organizational Social Context (OSC) Measure is an extensively researched, nationally-normed and psychometrically proven measures of cultures and climates of child welfare and mental health organizations. The measure is used to assess and track over time, the cultures and climates of the organizations in which they are conducting their studies. It has also been used effectively in a growing list of other settings, including substance abuse and 12-step programs, homeless shelters, child and adult autism services, nursing homes, hospitals and hospital emergency rooms, and crisis stabilization units.Website:
Website providing access to and/or describing the assessment instrument
Instrument and/or related documentation:
Not FoundCiting Literature - Development/Original:
Reference for publication describing the development of the assessment instrument
Glisson, C., Landsverk, J., Schoenwald, S., Kelleher, K., Hoagwood, K. E., Mayberg, S., Green, P., & Research Network on Youth Mental Health (2008). Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: implications for research and practice. Administration and policy in mental health, 35(1-2), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-007-0148-5. PMID: 18085434.Citing Literature - Empirical Use/Application:
Reference for publications on the application of the assessment instrument
Aarons, G. A., Glisson, C., Green, P. D., Hoagwood, K., Kelleher, K. J., Landsverk, J. A., Research Network on Youth Mental Health, Weisz, J. R., Chorpita, B., Gibbons, R., Glisson, C., Green, E. P., Hoagwood, K., Jensen, P. S., Kelleher, K., Landsverk, J., Mayberg, S., Miranda, J., Palinkas, L., & Schoenwald, S. (2012). The organizational social context of mental health services and clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice: a United States national study. Implementation science : IS, 7, 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-56. PMID: 22726759; PMCID: PMC3444886.Glisson, C., Green, P., & Williams, N. J. (2012). Assessing the Organizational Social Context (OSC) of child welfare systems: implications for research and practice. Child abuse & neglect, 36(9), 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.06.002. PMID: 22980071.
Version:
Number/name of the most recent version of the assessment instrument
Not FoundRelated Instruments:
Not FoundImplementation Science Considerations
- Active Implementation Framework
- Advancing health disparities research within the health care system
- Availability, Responsiveness & Continuity (ARC): An Organizational & Community Intervention Model
- Behaviour Change Wheel
- Blueprint for Dissemination
- Choosing Wisely Deimplementation Framework
- Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR)
- Conceptual Framework for Research Knowledge Transfer and Utilization
- Conceptual Model of Knowledge Utilization
- Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research
- Coordinated Implementation Model
- Dissemination and Implementation Framework for an Early Childhood Obesity Prevention Program
- Dissemination of Evidence-based Interventions to Prevent Obesity
- Dynamic Sustainability Framework
- EMTReK - Evidence-based Model for the Transfer and Exchange of Research Knowledge
- EQ-DI Framework
- Evidence Integration Triangle
- Facilitating Adoption of Best Practices (FAB) Model
- Framework for Analyzing Adoption of Complex Health Innovations
- Framework for Enhancing the Value of Research for Dissemination and Implementation
- Framework for Spread
- Framework for the Dissemination & Utilization of Research for Health-Care Policy & Practice
- Framework of Dissemination in Health Services Intervention Research
- General theory of implementation
- Generic Implementation Framework
- Greenhalgh Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations
- Health Equity Implementation Framework
- Health Promotion Research Center Framework
- Implementation Effectiveness Model
- Interactive Systems Framework
- Kingdon's Multiple-Streams Framework
- Knowledge Exchange Framework
- Knowledge Transfer and Exchange
- Model for Improving the Dissemination of Nursing Research
- Model for Predictors of Adoption
- Organizational Theory of Innovation Implementation
- Pathways to Evidence Informed Policy
- Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM)
- Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2
- Precede-Proceed Model
- Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS)
- Pronovost's 4E's Process Theory
- Push-Pull Capacity Model
- RAND Model of Persuasive Communication and Diffusion of Medical Innovation
- RE-AIM 2.0/Contextually Expanded RE-AIM
- Real-World Dissemination
- Replicating Effective Programs Framework
- Transcreation Framework for Community-engaged Behavioral Interventions to Reduce Health Disparities
- Weiner organizational readiness
- conNECT Framework
- Acceptability
- Adoption
- Appropriateness
- Assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators
- Audit and provide feedback
- Capture and share local knowledge
- Implementation
- Sustainment
Constructs Assessed:
Constructs assessed by the assessment instrument (linked to constructs included in the D&I models webtool)Theories, Models, Frameworks Relevant:
Implementation Outcomes:
The relevance of the assessment instrument to various implementation outcomesImplementation Strategies:
The implementation strategy/ies evaluated by the assessment instrumentPhase of Implementation Process:
Phase of implementation process when the assessment instrument can be used
Intended Focus
- Organizational
- Clinician
- Public Health Practitioner
- Front-line Staff
- Clinical Outpatient
- Clinical Inpatient
- Residential Care
- Community Organization
- Public Health Agency
- Workplace
- Child Welfare and Mental Health Organizations
Levels of Data Collection:
The level(s) from which the assessment instrument collects dataIntended Priority Population:
Intended priority population from whom data are collected using the assessment instrumentIntended Priority Setting:
Intended priority setting in which the assessment instrument is usedPolicy:
Not FoundAssessment instrument is relevant to policyEquity Focus:
Not Found
Psychometric Properties
Scoring:
YesThe assessment instrument produces a composite scoreNorms:
Not FoundMeasures of central tendency and distribution for the total score are based on small, medium, large sample sizeResponsiveness:
YesThe ability of the assessment instrument to detect change over time (i.e., sensitivity to change or intervention effects).Validity:
Not FoundThe extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure accurately.Reliability:
Not FoundThe extent to which results are consistent results over time, across raters, across settings, or across items intended to measure the same thing.Factor Analysis:
YesA statistical method that uses the correlation between observed variables to identify common factors.
Pragmatic Properties
- Medium: Asyncronous collection of data
Time to Administer:
20 minsThe amount of time required to complete the assessment instrumentSecondary Data:
Not FoundCost:
CostCost associated with access to assessment instrument (Some insturments might require login.)Literacy:
Not FoundReadability of the items reported on.Interpretation:
YesExpertise needed for interpretation of data is reported.Training:
YesExpertise needed to use the assessment instrument is reportedResources Required to Administer:
None/LowResources needed to administer the assessment instrument (FTE for data collector, equipment, etc.)User Guidance:
Not FoundGuides are provided to support administration of assessment instrument/data collection, and/or analysis of data from the assessment instrument, and/or interpretation of data, and/or action/decision on how to use dataObtrusiveness:
Degree of intrusion the participants will experience because of the data collection when using the assessment instrument (e.g., assessment instruments that rely on use of secondary data or automated data will be less obtrusive)Interactivity:
Not FoundData collection and/or result generation involves interactive components.
Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to write one.