Development,validity and reliability testing the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire

Abstract

Background:

An ethical climate has been described as a working climate embracing shared perceptions about morally correct behaviour concerning ethical issues. Various ethical climate questionnaires have been developed and validated for different contexts, but no questionnaire has been found concerning the ethical climate from an inter-professional perspective in a healthcare context. The Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire, based on Habermas’ four requirements for a democratic dialogue, attempts to assess and measure the ethical climate at various inter-professional workplaces. This study aimed to present the construction of and to test the psychometric properties of the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire.

Method:

An expert group of six researchers, skilled in ethics, evaluated the content validity. The questionnaire was tested among 355 healthcare workers at three hospitals in Sweden. A parallel analysis (PA), an exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were performed.

Ethical considerations:

The participants included in the psychometric analysis were informed about the study, asked to participate in person and informed that they could withdraw at any time without giving any reason. They were also assured of confidentiality in the reporting of the results.

Findings:

The parallel analysis (PA) recommended one factor as a solution. The initial exploratory factor analysis with a four-factor solution showed low concordance with a four-factor model. Cronbach’s alpha varied from 0.75 to 0.82; however, since two factors only consisted of one item, alpha could not be reported. Cronbach’s alpha for the entire scale showed good homogeneity (α = 0.86). A confirmatory factory analysis was carried out based on the four requirements and showed a goodness-of-fit after deleting two items. After deletion of these items, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82.

Discussion:

Based on the exploratory factor analysis, we suggest that the scale should be treated as a one-factor model. The result indicates that the instrument is unidimensional and assesses ethical climate as a whole.

Conclusion:

After testing the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire, we found support for the validity and reliability of the instrument. We found the 10-item version of Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire satisfactory. However, we found no support for measuring different dimensions and, therefore, this instrument should be seen as assessing ethical climate as of whole.

Keywords

Ethical climate Habermas healthcare professionals psychometric assessment

Introduction

Ethical climate has been defined as a form of working climate that embraces shared perceptions about what constitutes the correct behaviour, which in turn influences ways ethical issues and decision-making are handled.¹ Ethically difficult care situations challenge moral values and sometimes lead to consequences such as feelings of uncertainty, loneliness and powerlessness.^2
–4 To date, only a few ethical climate scales applicable to healthcare workers have been developed, mainly investigating nurses’ perceptions.⁵ This study reports the construction and validation of an inter-professional ethical climate scale, based on Habermas’ theory of communicative actions.

Ethical climate has been described in various contexts, for instance, in business and trade,^6,7 leadership–employee relations,⁸ organizational characters⁹ and in the context of resource management.¹⁰ The ethical climate has been described as a form of the organization’s working climate and concerns how codes of ethics, perceptions of norms and policies influence employees’ ethical behaviour.^1,9 Silverman¹¹ defines ethical climate as shared understandings and perceptions of certain values. Studies show a positive relation between the organization and the leadership’s perception of ethical climate and the employees’ ethical behaviour.^1,8,12 Martin and Cullen,¹ have developed an ethical climate model, built on the ethics of utilitarianism and deontology, related to the dimensions of egoism, benevolence and principle. In a healthcare context, the ethical climate is described by Olson,^5,13 as shared values, perceptions and decisions in the relations among healthcare professions, patients, managers and organizations and a mutual respect concerning ethical issues. In a study by Silén et al.¹⁴ Resident nurses (RNs) described an ethical climate as positive if they were able to meet the patients’ needs and Hart¹⁵ showed that ethical climate was one important factor in RNs remaining in their positions.

Ethical climate is a complex and subtle phenomenon as the clinical work with patients and their families involves a number of professionals. According to Jameton,¹⁶ each professional group has its own identity and codes of ethics and meets patients in different situations or contexts. In studies by Grönlund^4,17 nurses and physicians have described ethical difficulties in the same situations but from different perspectives. They reported difficulties in communicating their concerns and expressed a need to achieve a broader understanding of the situation. Similar results are reported by Silén et al.,¹⁴ who described inter-professional collaborations and shared responsibility as a prerequisite for a positive ethical climate, which has proved to be a problem due to a lack of mutual understanding among the professional groups.⁴

Efforts have been made to develop various forms of clinical ethical support (CES) in order to increase understanding of what constitutes ethical practice. A compilation of the documented effects of CES shows a complex and wide range of knowledge and skills.¹⁸ The difficulties in evaluating CES seem to stem both from the fact that participants are not always aware of all aspects of the skills and knowledge they practice and provide and from the lack of suitable instruments. Weidema et al.,¹⁹ however, showed that inter-professional communication in CES promoted increased inter-professional collaboration, reflection and shared perceptions that led to the breaking of unethical habits. Grönlund et al.²⁰ carried out a series of CES interventions, inspired by Habermas’ theory of communicative actions, and showed that during the process the participants’ language successively changed from expressions of frustration and individual understandings to wider views and the achievement of a common understanding of the situation. Previous studies (Grönlund et al.^4,17), however, show that it was difficult to discuss ethical problems between different healthcare professional groups because of the variety of perspectives. We, therefore, looked for a model that could promote dialogue among different professional groups with varying perspectives on the situation. Habermas et al.’s²¹ four requirements for a democratic dialogue seemed to meet this criterion.

In Habermas et al.’s²¹ theory, communicative actions mean maintaining a democratic dialogue to achieve new and common knowledge built on a common consensual understanding of the issue of concern. This communication approach implies revealing the problem and moving on towards recognizing common values. The prerequisite for such an approach is openness, which means that side effects, any consequences of validity claims and suggestions need to be presented, revalidated, clarified and accepted by all those concerned.²² Communicative actions require equality among the participants to be maintained so that all can feel free to express themselves and are met with respect.²¹ Grönlund et al.²⁰ showed that a permissive communication climate is an essential prerequisite for dialogue in the CES intervention. The results of this study motivated further investigations concerning how relations between inter-professional communications can open a pathway for establishing an ethical climate, in line with Habermas’ theory of communicative actions. Already existing ethical climate scales are adapted to various contexts. Within the business and trade sectors, a theory-based ethical climate questionnaire developed⁶ and used by Engelbrecht et al.¹² was modified and adapted to a caring context by Tsai and Huang.²³ Other scales investigate how individuals’ perceptions of values, norms and procedures govern their decisions,²⁴ recognition of ethical issues and maintenance of ethical standards⁸. Trevino¹⁰ combined ethical climate and ethical culture issues and Bartells⁹ studied employees’ ethical conduct in relation to the character of the organization they work in.

All the ethical climate scales mentioned above investigate how the leadership, organization and workplace culture are related to the perception of the ethical climate and the employees’ ethical conduct. Within the healthcare context, a Hospital Ethics Climate Survey (HECS) was developed and validated by Olson^5,13 concerning nurses’ relationships with peers, patients, managers, physicians and the hospital. The HECS is aimed at nurses and has been used to investigate nurses’ perceptions of the ethical climate in clinical practice.²⁵ However, in the healthcare context, there are several professional specialities involved in patient care.²⁶ According to Höglund,²⁷ it is important to involve the various professional groups in a democratic dialogue concerning ethically difficult care situations, in order to promote shared perspectives and allow the making of well-founded decisions. Such a dialogue can be based on the theory of communicative action and discourse ethics.²⁸ In the theory of communicative action, four principles underpin an ideal dialogue situation, namely: equality, review, openness and the will to reach a reflective consensus.

According to Habermas et al.,²¹ ‘Equality’ means that all the participants in a discourse should have the ability to communicate by freely initiating, debating, asking and answering questions. ‘Review’ means that all participants should have the ability to interpret, state, propose, argue and problematize or refute all claims for validity, so that no preconceived opinions evade criticism. In a process using arguments, motives and counterarguments the validity of aspects and statements may be validated.^21,22 ‘Openness’ means that access is given to all equally to express their views through statements that are truthful, sincere, valid and comprehensible. This freedom is important because it alone can ensure that the participants are both true to themselves and are prepared to reconsider their standpoints.²¹ Finally, ‘Consensus’ means that everyone who participates should be willing to seek solutions that most can accept.²¹ These requirements form the starting point for Habermas and colleagues^21,22 version of discourse ethics, focusing on the communication procedure that leads to reasonable ethical norms and a morally correct act that can be accepted by those involved. This procedure is in itself normative, as it is based on the principle of human dignity, equality and openness.

Because ethical climate is a complex and subtle phenomenon, the question is how can changes in the ethical climate at a workplace be assessed and measured. Our own experiences of working as a clinical ethics support group suggest that the ethical climate comprises almost the same four aspects or prerequisites as Jürgen Habermas’ four requirements for democratic dialogue. Since we were unable to find any instrument for assessing an ethical climate with an inter-professional focus, an ethical climate scale based on Habermas’ theory of communicative actions was developed.

This study aimed to present the construction of and test the psychometric properties of the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire (SwECQ).

Development of the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire (SwECQ)

Item development

The SwECQ was constructed using Habermas’s²¹ four requirements for a democratic dialogue as a starting point/base for the items. Possible items were brainstormed, suggested and formulated within the research team. The items were then condensed into three questions related to each of Habermas’ four requirements for a democratic dialogue. The research team then examined and further revised the items.

The final version of the SwECQ comprises 12 items answered on a six-point scale (‘Not at all’ to ‘To a large extent’.) One of the items (item 12) is inverted. A total score is calculated by adding items 1–11 and the inverted item 12.

Item validation

Content validity on item (I-CVI) and scale level (S-CVI) were first tested by ethical agents within the various healthcare professions, such as registered nurses, enrolled nurses, physicians, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. After participating in clinical ethics support sessions, these professionals answered the questionnaire and wrote comments and suggestions. After some minor adjustments to the statements, a panel of six experts represented by one professor emerita, two professors and three senior lecturers with expertise in the areas of ethics and scale development were consulted in order to evaluate the content validity of the items²⁹ The expert panel represented the following professional areas: ethics/philosophy, physiotherapy, psychology, nursing, psychiatry and anaesthesia. For each item, they were asked to assess its relevance for the ethical climate according to the following alternatives: ‘Not relevant’, ‘less relevant’, ‘quite relevant’ and ‘very relevant’. The percentage of items deemed to be relevant for each expert was computed, and an average of the percentages across the experts was calculated.²⁹ A first version of the items showed a low Content Validity Index (S-CVI = 0.68). After rewording some of the items, the S-CVI increased to 0.88 with an I-CVI ranging from 0.8 to 1.0. Items 1 and 6, respectively, can serve as examples of rewording; from ‘Can you start a discussion about difficult situations at your workplace?’ to ‘Do you support each other in difficult situations at your workplace?’; and from ‘Do people take time to discuss difficult / sensitive topics in your workplace?’ to ‘Do you take the time to discuss difficult or sensitive topics at your workplace?’

Procedure

The final version of SwECQ was tested by a convenience sample of various groups of healthcare workers (n = 355), comprising 162 (46%) nurses, 79 (22.4%) enrolled nurses and 52 (14.8%) care assistants. The remaining 62 (16.8) participants were medical doctors, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and others. The participants were recruited from the northern, central and southern parts of Sweden to obtain maximum variation³⁰ (Table 1). This design provided a subject-to-item ratio of 29:1, well over the recommended 20:1 criterion.³¹

Table 1.

Background data of the participants.

	Total n = 355
Gender: n, (%)
Male	49 (13.8)
Female	303 (85.4)
Age: n, (%)
−20	6 (1.7)
21–30	156 (43.9)
31–40	80 (22.5)
41–50	53 (14.9)
51–60	46 (13.0)
>60	12 (3.4)
Missing	2 (0.6)
Profession: n, (%)
Nursing assistant	52 (14.6)
Enrolled nurse	79 (22.3)
Registered nurse	162 (45.6)
Medical doctor	5 (1.4)
Occupational therapist	2 (0.6)
Physiotherapist	5 (1.4)
Social worker	3 (0.8)
RN students	44 (12.4)
Number of years in nursing care: mean, (SD)	12.57 (11.56)
Number of years in the current workplace: mean, (SD)	6.16 (7.27)
Employer: n, (%)
Municipality	65 (18.3)
County	244 (68.7)
Private	27 (2.3)
Other	8 (2.3)

Statistical analysis

An initial analysis included assessment of the distributional properties of each item (i.e. distribution in per cent, skewness and kurtosis for each item). A parallel analysis (PA) was performed to determine the number of common factors in the SwECQ³² Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to explore the underlying structure of the 12-item SwECQ while confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to evaluate the model fit.

In the EFA, the factors were extracted based on eigenvalues greater than 1, using principal axis factoring as the extraction method, with direct oblimin rotation.³¹ The extraction method was chosen because it was assumed that the data would not be normally distributed; direct oblimin rotation was chosen since the factors were expected to correlate with each other. Deletion of items from the 12-item SwECQ was performed based on the model fit in the CFA. Two items were deleted because it was not possible to obtain an acceptable goodness-of-fit in the CFA. Statistics used to assess goodness-of-fit were chi-square (χ²) and chi-square/degrees of freedom (χ²/df), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Internal consistency was estimated by Cronbach’s alpha.

SPSS version 23.0 and AMOS version 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) statistical software packages were used for the statistical analyses. parallel analysis (PA) was performed using FACTOR version 8.02 (Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona, Spain).

Ethical considerations

Those included in the psychometric analysis were informed about the study, asked in person to participate, informed that they could withdraw at any time without giving a reason and were assured of confidentiality throughout. According to the Swedish Act concerning ethics in research,³³ this analysis, which is an analysis of the psychometrics of the instrument, does not require its own specific ethical approval.

Result

An initial analysis of the distribution of responses showed moderate skewness in some items. However, all skewness was below 1.0. The number of missing items was low (Table 2).

Table 2.

Median and distribution in per cent for each item and response alternatives of the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire (SwECQ). English version in plain text, Swedish in italics.

	Items	Md	1	2	3	4	5	6	Mis	Sk
1	Do you support each other in difficult situations at your workplace? Kan ni på din arbetsplats inleda en diskussion som gäller verksamheten?	5	1 (0.3)	10 (2.8)	34 (9.6)	78 (22.0)	133 (37.5)	91 (25.6)	8	−0.71
2	Can accepted procedures and any prejudices be criticized and problematized at your workplace? Kan vedertagna rutiner och eventuella förutfattade meningar kritiseras och problematiseras på din arbetsplats?	4	5 (1.4)	25 (7.0)	75 (21.1)	106 (39.9)	112 (31.5)	28 (7.9)	4	−0.36
3	Can you at your workplace express your opinions about what is right and good to do? Kan ni på din arbetsplats ge uttryck för era uppfattningar om vad som är rätt och gott att göra?	5	0 (0.0)	6 (1.7)	28 (7.9)	91 (25.6)	143 (40.3)	84 (23.7)	3	−0.54
4	To what extent do you look for solutions that most or all can agree upon? I vilken utsträckning söker du efter lösningar som flertalet eller alla kan enas om?	4	7 (2.0)	31 (8.7)	62 (17.5)	99 (27.9)	110 (31,0)	43 (12,1)	3	−0,43
5	Can you at your work address sensitive topics? Kan ni på din arbetsplats ta upp känsliga ämnen?	5	10 (2.8)	25 (7.0)	57 (16.1)	80 (22.5)	109 (30.7)	74 (20.8)	0	−0.58
6	Do you take the time to discuss difficult or sensitive topics at your workplace? Tar ni er tid att diskutera svåra eller känsliga ämnen på din arbetsplats?	5	6 (1.7)	20 (5.6)	53 (14.9)	76 (21.4)	110 (31.0)	87 (24.5)	3	−0.62
7	Do you support each other in difficult situations at your workplace? Stödjer ni varandra i svåra situationer på din arbetsplats?	5	4 (1.1)	9 (2.5)	32 (9.0)	90 (25.4)	139 (39.2)	78 (22.0)	3	−0.82
8	Are you free to voice criticism at your work? Känner du dig fri att framföra kritiska synpunkter på din arbetsplats?	4	5 (1.4)	19 (5.4)	64 (18.0)	105 (29.6)	106 (29.9)	52 (14.6)	4	−0.39
9	Is it possible to question actions of others at your workplace? Är det möjligt att ifrågasätta andras handlingar på din arbetsplats?	4	8 (2.3)	53 (14.9)	86 (24.2)	130 (36.6)	55 (15.5)	16 (4.5)	7	−0.07
10	Is it possible to admit your own mistakes without losing reputation at your workplace? Går det att erkänna egna misstag utan att förlora anseendet på din arbetsplats?	5	2 (0.6)	5 (1.4)	20 (5.6)	89 (25.1)	160 (45.1)	75 (21.1)	4	−0.83
11	Are you willing to seek common solutions at your workplace? Är ni beredda att söka gemensamma lösningar på din arbetsplats?	5	1 (0.3)	8 (2.3)	30 (8,5)	112 (31.5)	135 (38.0)	66 (18.6)	3	−0.50
12	Do you stick easily in lengthy discussions without reaching a solution at your workplace? Fastnar ni lätt i långa diskussioner utan att komma till en lösning på din arbetsplats?	3	21 (5.9)	84 (23.7)	88 (24.8)	91 (25.6)	48 (13.5)	17 (4.8)	6	0.17

Md: median; Mis: missing; Sk: skewness.

A parallel analysis (PA) based on minimum rank factor analysis was carried out to determine the minimum number of factors in the SwECQ. The result shows that the recommended number of factors was one (Figure 1; Table 3).

Figure 1.

Scree plot of parallel analysis (PA) of the Swedish version of the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire (SwECQ).

Table 3.

Results from the parallel analysis (PA) of the Swedish version of the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire (SwECQ).

Variable	Real-data variance (%)	Mean of random variance (%)
1	52.3	16.8
2	10.1	15.0
3	7.5	13.5
4	6.5	12.0
5	5.7	10.5
6	4.5	9.0
7	4.1	7.5
8	3.8	6.1
9	2.9	4.7
10	2.0	3.2
11	0.6	1.7
12	0.0	0.0

An initial EFA showed a model where two factors had eigenvalues of 1 or more. However, there were multiple crossovers between the factors where only one item loaded on one factor. A second EFA, forced into a four-factor model, showed low concordance since one factor included only one item and another only two items. Furthermore, there were some crossover charges between the factors (Table 4). Cronbach’s alpha varied from 0.75 to 0.82, however; since two factors consisted only of one item, alpha could not be reported. Cronbach’s alpha for the entire scale showed good homogeneity (α = 0.86).

Table 4.

Items, factor loadings, total variance explained, Cronbach’s alpha and content validity index on item and scale level for the four-factor structure of the Swedish Ethical Climate Questionnaire (SwECQ).

	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3	Factor 4
SwECQ11 Are you willing to seek common solutions at your workplace?	0.706
SwECQ9 Is it possible to question actions of others at your workplace?	0.666	0.304
SwECQ10 Is it possible to admit your own mistakes without losing reputation at your workplace?	0.576
SwECQ7 Do you support each other in difficult situations at your workplace?	0.507
SwECQ6 Do you take the time to discuss difficult or sensitive topics at your workplace?	0.489	−0.346
SwECQ8 Do you free to voice criticism at your work?		0.387
SwECQ3 Can you at your workplace express your opinions about what is right and good to do?			−0.798
X SwECQ2 Can accepted procedures and any prejudices be criticized and problematized at your workplace?			−0.684
SwECQ1 Do you support each other in difficult situations at your workplace?			−0.506
SwECQ5 Can you at your work address sensitive topics?				0.969
X SwECQ4 To what extent do you look for solutions that most or all can agree upon?				0.410
SwECQ12 Do you stuck easily in lengthy discussions without reaching a solution at your workplace?				–
Total cumulative variance explained (%)	42.68	47.73	51.56	54.36
Cronbach’s alpha	0.82	–	0.75	–

X: items deleted in the SwECQ.

CFA was performed on the final version to test its goodness-of-fit. After deleting two items (items 2 and 4), the chi-square was significant (p < 0.001); however, the relative chi-square (χ²/df), applied to make a test less dependent on sample size, was 3.07. The TLI was 0.92, NFI was 0.93, CFI was 0.95 and exceeded the necessary 0.9 for acceptable model fit; and, finally, RMSEA was 0.08. The final model is shown in Figure 2, including the path coefficients (standardized regression weights and correlations). Correlations between the factors were in the interval of –0.05 to 0.56, with the highest correlation between ‘Review’ and ‘Equality’. All of the path coefficients were significant at the p < 0.001 level. After deleting items 2 and 4, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82.

Figure 2.

Model of the final 10-item SwECQ with standardized regression weights and correlations.

Discussion

This study aimed to present the construction of and test the psychometric properties of the SwECQ.

Six experts in the field assessed content validity. According to Polit and Beck,³⁴ standard acceptability for S-CVI is 0.80, while Waltz et al.³⁵ argue that S-CVI should be 0.90 or higher. The S-CVI for the SwECQ was 0.88, which could be seen as acceptable.

The variation between the different response alternatives showed that the median response was at the higher end of the scale. However, skewness was below 1.0, indicating that the distribution was only moderately skewed.

The parallel analysis (PA) suggested a one-factor solution. However, Hayton et al.³⁶ argue that in some situations parallel analysis (PA) can under-factor. One of these situations is when there is a high correlation between factors, as in this case.

The reliability of the EFA four-factor model was quite low since one factor loaded with only one item and for another factor one item loaded under 0.3. Based on an EFA, we suggest that the scale should preferably be treated as a one-factor model. This indicates that the instrument is unidimensional and only assesses ethical climate and not the subscales: ‘Equality’, ‘Review’, ‘Consensus’ and ‘Openness’.

The goodness-of-fit (TLI, NFI, CFI and RMSEA) in the CFA was acceptable. However, the result of the chi-square test was high and showed a significant p value, which is non-preferable. However, since the chi-square test is sensitive to sample size³⁷ and this study had a large sample (n = 355), we did not expect a non-significant chi-square value. The relative chi-square was 3.4, that is, well within the recommended range of 2.0–5.0.^36,38

Our result shows that we had relatively few missing items in the SwECQ, possibly indicating that the respondents did not find the questions difficult to answer.

In this study, SwECQ was validated as a theory-based instrument for investigating how healthcare professionals perceive the ethical climate in their everyday clinical practice. The use of SwECQ allows the possibility of assessing interventions related to communicative actions among healthcare professionals by means of measuring the ethical climate before and after a problematic situation. Silverman¹¹ believes that open inter-relationships and communications among employees are an essential part of an ethical climate. According to Brinkmann and Ims³⁹ the motivation for having an ethical climate may vary and therefore needs to be re-evaluated. In an ethical discourse the participants can revalue their standpoints and discover what norms and interests are morally accepted. This can be seen in relation to Habermas and colleagues,^21,22 arguing that through communicative actions we may test our inter-subjective viewpoints in relation to those of others and then further re-evaluate our own standpoints in relation to their inconsistencies. These various standpoints form the basis for a new knowledge and common understanding of the situation. We argue that the SwECQ instrument functions as an important cornerstone in assessing how professionals, that is, healthcare professionals, experience an ethical climate. Furthermore, this knowledge may inspire insights among the professionals concerning how to promote an ethical climate in the workplace, especially when it comes to dealing with ethically difficult situations.

Methodological discussion

One strength of our study is that we have tested the instrument in different groups of people. As we wanted to discover whether it can be used in different groups and contexts, we decided to use a diverse sample since validity and reliability aspects can be new for each setting and different groups. However, since the participants in this study were not only basic caring staff but also paramedical personnel who have a consultative status and are not constricted to one workplace/ward, the participant selection may have affected the results because of the different perspectives they brought to bear when responding to the instrument. Nevertheless, these staff are a part of the organization and, in our view, also part of the ethical climate. Furthermore, this sample mirrors a diverse population comprising people from both sexes, of various ages, with various educations and backgrounds – characteristics that we see as strengths in a study aiming to test the psychometric properties of a questionnaire. Further studies in various contexts are recommended in order to evaluate the validity of the instrument in other professions involving caring for people with various needs.

One weakness in this study is that both the EFA and the CFA was performed using the same dataset. This is unfortunate, but our sample was considered to be too small for a split half. Nevertheless, this is something that has to be done in future research. We also performed the CFA in order to confirm our hypothesis that this instrument is able to capture different domains in the ethical climate. When carrying out the CFA, we found that goodness-of-fit was not acceptable unless two items were deleted. Hence, this instrument has to be tested further in order to determine whether the four different domains can be assessed.

Conclusion and relevance for clinical practice

We found this instrument suitable for identifying an ethical climate. After testing the SwECQ, we found support for the validity and reliability of the instrument and that the revised 10-item version is satisfactory. However, we found only weak support for measurement of the different dimensions and we, therefore, recommend that this instrument should be deemed to assess ethical climate as of whole. Since Habermas stresses the argumentation process as a way of testing the validity claims of various statements, further development of the instrument should include items concerning this process. Furthermore, it would also be of interest to develop an instrument focusing on the views of patients and stakeholders about the ethical climate.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would especially like to thank the participants for their contribution to the study. Study design: U.I., A.S. and V.D.; data collection: A.S., U.I., C.F.G. and V.D.; data analysis: U.I. and manuscript preparation: U.I., C.F.G., L.A., A.S. and V.D.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Department of Nursing at Umeå University, Sweden.

References

Martin

Cullen

. Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: a meta-analytic review. J Bus Ethics 2006; 69: 175–194.

Sorlie

Lindseth

Forde

, et al. The meaning of being in ethically difficult care situations in pediatrics as narrated by male registered nurses. J Pediatr Nurs 2003; 18(5): 350–357.

Rasoal

Kihlgren

James

, et al. What healthcare teams find ethically difficult: captured in 70 moral case deliberations. Nurs Ethics 2016; 23: 825–8370.

Grönlund

Soderberg

Zingmark

, et al. Ethically difficult situations in hemodialysis care: nurses’ narratives. Nurs Ethics 2015; 22(6): 711–722.

Olson

. Ethical climate in health care organizations. Int Nurs Rev 1995; 42: 85–90.

Cullen

Bart

Bronson

. The ethical climate questionary: an assessment of its development and validity. Psychol Rep 1993; 73: 667–674.

Cullen

Parboteeah

Victor

. The effects of ethical climates on organizational commitment: a two-study analysis. J Bus Ethics 2003; 46: 127–141.

Mayer

Kuenzi

Greenbaum

. Examining the link between ethical leadership and employee misconduct: the mediating role of ethical climate. J Bus Ethics 2010; 95: 7–16.

Bartels

Harrick

Martell

, et al. The relationship between ethical climate and ethical problems within human resource management. J Bus Ethics 1998; 17: 799–804.

10.

Treviño

Butterfield

McCabe

. The ethical context in organizations: influences on employee attitudes and behaviors. Bus Ethics Quart 1998; 8: 447–476.

11.

Silverman

. Organizational ethics in healthcare organizations: proactively managing the ethical climate to ensure organizational integrity. HEC Forum 2000; 12(3): 202–215.

12.

Engelbrecht

Van Aswegen

Theron

. The effect of ethical values on transformational leadership and ethical climate in organisations. South Afr Bus Manage 2005; 36: 19–26.

13.

Olson

. Hospital nurses’ perceptions of the ethical climate of their work setting. Image J Nurs Sch 1998; 30(4): 345–349.

14.

Silen

Kjellstrom

Christensson

, et al. What actions promote a positive ethical climate? A critical incident study of nurses’ perceptions. Nurs Ethics 2012; 19(4): 501–512.

15.

Hart

. Hospital ethical climates and registered nurses’ turnover intentions. J Nurs Scholarsh 2005; 37(2): 173–177.

16.

Jameton

. A reflection on moral distress in nursing together with a current application of the concept. J Bioeth Inq 2013; 10(3): 297–308.

17.

Grönlund

Dahlqvist

Soderberg

. Feeling trapped and being torn: physicians’ narratives about ethical dilemmas in hemodialysis care that evoke a troubled conscience. BMC Med Ethics 2011; 12: 8.

18.

Hem

Pedersen

Norvoll

, et al. Evaluating clinical ethics support in mental healthcare: a systematic literature review. Nurs Ethics 2015; 22(4): 452–466.

19.

Weidema

Molewijk

BAC

Kamsteeg

, et al. Aims and harvest of moral case deliberation. Nurs Ethics 2013; 20(6): 617–631.

20.

Grönlund

Dahlqvist

Zingmark

, et al. Managing ethical difficulties in healthcare: communicating in inter-professional clinical ethics support sessions. HEC Forum 2016; 28(4): 321–338.

21.

Habermas

Molander

Carleheden

. Communicative actions: texts about language, rationality and society (SWE). Göteborg: Daidalos, 1996, pp. 67–72, 85–86, 101, 110–113, 119–126, 128–130, 303.

22.

Habermas

. Discourse ethics: notes on a program of philosophical justification. In: Benhabib

Dallmayr

(eds) The communicative ethics controversy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1990, pp. 62–64, 67–71, 302.

23.

Tsai

M-T

Huang

C-C

. The relationship among ethical climate types, facets of job satisfaction, and the three components of organizational commitment: a study of nurses in Taiwan. J Bus Ethics 2008; 80: 565–581.

24.

Schwepker

. Ethical climate’s relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention in the salesforce. J Bus Res 2001; 54: 39–52.

25.

Bahcecik

Ozturk

. The hospital ethical climate survey in Turkey. JONAS Healthc Law Ethics Regul 2003; 5(4): 94–99.

26.

Falkenström

. Ethical competence in healthcare management: identification and handling of conflicts of interest (SWE). Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2012.

27.

Höglund

. No easy choices: on guidelines and ethical comperence in priority setting in health care: a study in empirical ethics. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2005.

28.

Habermas

. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1990.

29.

Polit

Beck

. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2006; 29(5): 489–497.

30.

Polit

Hungler

. Nursing research: principles and methods. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1999, p. 756.

31.

Costello

Osborne

. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 2005; 10: 1–9.

32.

Timmerman

Lorenzo-Seva

. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods 2011; 16(2): 209–220.

33.

SFS 2008: 192. The Act concerning the Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans.

34.

Polit

Beck

. Essentials of nursing research: methods, appraisal, and utilization. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006, p. 554.

35.

Waltz

Strickland

Lenz

, et al. Measurement in nursing and health research. New York: Springer, 2005, p. 448.

36.

Hayton

Allen

Scarpello

. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Meth 2004; 7: 191–205.

37.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Bus Res Meth 2008; 6: 53–56.

38.

Tabachnick

Fidell

. Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2006, p. 980.

39.

Brinkmann

Ims

. Good intentions aside: drafting a functionalist look at codes of ethics. Bus Ethics: A Euro Rev 2003; 12: 265–274.