39

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 4, Number 3, 2010©2010 University of Phoenix

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com • DOI:10.1002/jls.20176

This article reports psychometric evaluation of the Penn State Leadership Competency Inventory

(LCI). The 32-item LCI was validated on a sample of 323 managers in the health care industry. Pre-

liminary validity and reliability evidence of the LCI was established through exploratory factor anal-

ysis (EFA), item-total correlations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, and confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA). The four-factor leadership competency scale, comprising supervisory and managerial com-

petencies, organizational leadership, personal mastery, and resource leadership, accounted for 58%

of variance. According to CFA results, the model fit of the four latent factors of the LCI was confirmed

to be appropriate. Cross-validation with other populations is needed to confirm the factor structure.

Limitations and further research recommendations are discussed.

L E A D E R S H I P C O M P E T E N C Y

I N V E N T O R Y : A S Y S T E M A T I C

P R O C E S S O F D E V E L O P I N G

A N D VA L I D A T I N G A

L E A D E R S H I P C O M P E T E N C Y

S C A L E

HYUNG JOON YOON, JI HOON SONG, WESLEY E. DONAHUE, AND KATHERYN K. WOODLEY

40 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls

leadership development is well documented, as is thepart they play in individual and group developmentplanning. Many illustrations of the development anduse of such instruments, primarily as competency-based,360-degree feedback measures, are given in Carter, Bennis, and Goldsmith (2000), specifically chapters 2,3, and 6.

Spenser and Spenser (1993) defined competency as “anunderlying characteristic of an individual that is causallyrelated to criterion-referenced effective and/or superiorperformance in a job or situation” (p. 9). Identifyingthe competencies required for effectiveness at differentleadership levels is a key element in deciding how to prepare individuals to function at each level and toprogress from level to level (Charan, Drotter, & Noel,2001). Given the key role that competency identifica-tion and development plays in performance improve-ment, it is not surprising that the study of competenciesis of increasing interest to the fields of human resourcedevelopment (HRD) and management and leadershipdevelopment (Bernthal et al., 2004; Dubois & Rothwell,2004). According to Gilbert (1978), competency-basedbehavior leads to worthy and valuable accomplishmentsin the workplace. An advantage that competency-based leadership development has over other approachesis that it promotes dynamic interaction betweenleaders and followers in the workplace (Dansereau,Cashman, & Graen, 1973; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Although leadership development scales are typicallydeveloped by researchers, scales are also developed byconsultancy companies in training and personnel selec-tion, the federal government, and HR practitionerswithin specific organizations on their own. For example,in Lentz’s study (1993), 27 leadership assessment toolswere identified and analyzed to select “the best” scalefor the organization. On the basis of this study, Lentzselected the Management Excellence Framework(MEF), developed by the U.S. Office of Personnel(OPM; Flanders & Utterback, 1985), and used this asthe basis for developing a new measure for his depart-mental leadership model. More recently, Naquin andHolton (2006) developed the Louisiana Managerial/Supervisory Survey (LMSS), based on OPM’s Leader-ship Effectiveness Framework (LEF). The OPM lead-ership models (MEF and LEF) were selected as the basisfor Penn State’s Leadership Competency Inventory

As Peter Drucker often mentioned, leaders in organi-zations have known that “if you can’t measure it, youcan’t manage it” (Drucker & Garvin, 1998, p. 69). Thismaxim, generally applied to management of organiza-tional tasks and processes, can also be applied to howone manages his or her leadership development. Manyorganizations use assessments of various types to iden-tify the leadership competencies or skill sets that cur-rent or potential leaders should possess (Rodriguez,Patel, Bright, Gregory, & Gowing, 2002). Throughmeasurement of leadership competencies, organizationsalso gain data useful in selecting persons for leadershiproles and in formulating leadership development plansand programs.

The literature in the domain of leadership research isreplete with studies of the development, use, and vali-dation of a large number of psychometric instrumentsto measure leadership practices and potential. Given therange of leadership theories, it is not surprising to findnumerous instruments designed to measure aspects ofcapacity, attitude, personality, behavior, and situationalfit. Some assessments are rooted in competency modelswhile others have their roots in the dimensions of the un-derlying theory. Some of the behavioral and competency-based instruments assess only self-perception (self-reportof behavior), while others add feedback from direct re-ports, peers, supervisors, and customers. The primarypractical use of such behavioral or competency-basedinstruments is for increased self-awareness and subse-quent leadership development.

Instruments to assess an individual’s leadership “style”owe much of their development to the behavioral stud-ies conducted in the 1950s, when dimensions of “taskand structure” and “consideration and support” wereexamined (e.g., Stogdill & Coons, 1957; Tannenbaum &Schmidt, 1958). Instruments of more current vintagethat have been extensively researched include the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio,1990) and the Leadership Practices Inventory (Posner &Kouzes, 1988, 1993). There are a variety of instrumentsdesigned for multisource feedback on various leader-ship characteristics and behaviors. A description of thekey features of some of the more popular tools can befound in Morical (1999), Eichinger and Lombardo(2003), and Leslie and Fleenor (1998). The use of psy-chometric instruments as part of needs assessment for

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls 41

(LCI) because (1) they were developed with input frommore than 10,000 individuals spanning multiple lead-ership levels, (2) OPM’s competencies are inclusive and comprehensive, and (3) the models are in the publicdomain.

The LCI was developed by faculty members of Penn-sylvania State University Continuing and ProfessionalEducation (PSUCaPE, 2007). Similar to the develop-ment of Lentz’s and Naquin and Holton’s scales (1993and 2006, respectively), the LCI was developed follow-ing preliminary research using the OPM model (Donahue, 1996). Unlike Lentz’s and Naquin andHolton’s studies, the 2007 version of the LCI was ex-panded to include competencies identified in theSCANS report for America 2000 (Secretary’s Commis-sion on Achieving Necessary Skills [SCANS], 1992).

The LCI has been used by PSUCaPE to identify lead-ership training and development needs over the past twoyears; in practice, it has played a critical role in manage-ment development business. At the time of this writing,34 organizations have used the LCI to assess the leader-ship development needs of their supervisors and managers. More than 75% of them subscribed to devel-opment programs based on the results (E. Bergstrom,personal communication, May 7, 2009). PSUCaPE re-ceived an Applied Research award in 2009 from Uni-versity Continuing Education Association (UCEA) forthe LCI’s innovative features and its contribution toadult and continuing education. Although PSUCaPEclients in both private and public sectors have reportedvery favorable results from use of the LCI, no formal val-idation study had been undertaken. To have greater con-fidence in the results provided to clients, a rigorousvalidation study of the LCI must be conducted.

Purpose of the StudyTwo aims guide this study. The first purpose of this ar-ticle is to report the process in developing a competency-based leadership inventory because the development ofthe LCI has never been published. In addition, review-ing the development process of any assessment is essen-tial for researchers to ensure the validity and soundnessof the assessment as well. The second purpose of this ar-ticle is to examine the validity evidence of the LCI withdata collected from organizations that have administered

the LCI. If the evidence turns out to be valid, the processof development and validation of the LCI may be du-plicated by researchers and practitioners.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The LCI incorporated competencies from studies con-ducted by the federal government. One is the Leader-ship Effectiveness Framework (LEF; U.S. Office ofPersonnel Management [OPM], Human Resources De-velopment Group [HRDG], & Office of Executive andManagement Policy [OEMP], 1993); the other is theSCANS report for America 2000 (SCANS, 1992).

LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESSFRAMEWORK

The LEF was preceded by the MEF (Flanders & Utterback, 1985) and is based on the results of the re-search updates of the MEF. The MEF was based onHoward and Bray’s 30-year personnel assessment re-search (1988) on 26 behavioral dimensions in AT&T(as cited in Donahue, 1996). Both LEF and MEF weredeveloped for federal government employees by OPMand were intended to identify salient competencies forseveral levels of leadership positions: supervisors, man-agers, and executives. They were also designed to beused as part of the Multipurpose Occupational Systemsand Analysis Inventory-Closed Ended (MOSAIC). Thisinventory included general, clerical, and technical com-petencies in an effort to identify the importance of thecompetencies for every occupation in the federal gov-ernment (OPM, 2007).

Three methods were used to identify the 22 compe-tencies of the MEF: a questionnaire, the critical inci-dent interview technique, and focus group interviewswith panels of supervisors and managers (Flanders &Utterback, 1985). The MEF had two major domainsfor the 22 competencies: effective characteristics andmanagement functions. According to Gregory and Park(1992), OPM conducted a leadership competency studywith a stratified, random sample of 20,664 executives,managers, and supervisors in the federal government in1992. The response, by 49% of the sample, supportedthe existence of 22 competencies. In a 1998 update ofthe LEF, the OPM added new competencies andgrouped them into five categories: leading change, lead-ing people, building coalitions/communication, results

42 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls

driven, and business acumen. The additional competen-cies were continual learning, political savvy, partnering,and entrepreneurship (OPM, 2007).

THE SCANS REPORT FOR AMERICA 2000

The SCANS Report for America 2000 (SCANS, 1992)was intended to help employers ensure that their em-ployees are equipped with up-to-date, appropriate skillsas well as to assist educators in developing the skills thatstudents would require for successful performance inthe modern workplace (SCANS, 1992). The developersof the LCI added selected competencies from theSCANS report to the LEF competencies, to permit as-sessment of a broader base of competencies.

There are two large domains in the SCANS report:competencies and foundational skills. There are five cate-gories included within the competencies domain: re-sources, information, interpersonal, systems, and technology.Within the foundational skills domain, three categoriesare identified: basic skills, thinking skills, and personal qual-ities. Each categories has three to six subitems; for exam-ple, the resources category has the subitems allocates time,allocates money, allocates material and facility resources, andallocates human resources. The personal qualities categoryincludes responsibility, self-esteem, social, self-management,and integrity/honesty (SCANS, 1992).

Development Process of theLeadership Competency InventoryThe LCI was developed by three experts in leadershipdevelopment, Wesley Donahue, Katheryn Woodley, andJohn Park. They hold Ph.D.s in workforce education,organizational psychology, and adult education, respec-tively, and each has more than 20 years of leadershiptraining experience for both public and private sectororganizations. This team elected to integrate the 1992versions of the LEF and the SCANS report. Rather thanuse the competency categories defined for the 1998 LEF,the experts chose to define categories following the inte-gration process. Including the SCANS report was con-sidered essential to using the LCI with populations ofindividuals not yet in formal managerial positions.

The process of integration was as follows:

Step 1. The nomenclature and behavioral descrip-tions of the 22 LEF competencies were modified

using an expert review process. For example, clientorientation became customer focus, and the behav-ioral description was changed from “anticipates andmeets the needs of clients; achieves quality end-products; is committed to improving services”(OPM, 2007, p. 244) to “actively seeks customerinput; ensures that customer needs are met; con-tinuously seeks to improve the quality of services,products, and processes” (PSUCaPE, 2007, p. 3).

Step 2. The experts reviewed the SCANS report andidentified additional, necessary skills from the itemsunder each category of the SCANS report. To en-sure consistency with the modified 22 items of theLCI, some of the items from the SCANS reportwere consolidated into one competency. For exam-ple, uses computers to process information, reading,writing, speaking, listening, arithmetic, and mathe-matics was modified to computer and basic literacyand defined as “proficient in using personal com-puter and learning new software; reads, writes, andperforms mathematical operations; speaks and lis-tens with comprehension.” This process resulted ineight competencies: computer and basic literacy, con-ceptual thinking, learning and information, resourceusage, understanding systems, interpersonal relation-ship building, self responsibility and management, andresource management.

Step 3. After reviewing the results of the LEF studyconducted in 1998 (OPM, 2007), the experts iden-tified two additional competencies for the LCI:strategic thinking and leading change. This broughtthe total number of competencies to 32. Includingleading change as a competency was a variation fromthe OPM model, which used it as a category. In theLCI, it was defined as “leads organizational trans-formation and change efforts; champions organi-zational change” (PSUCaPE, 2007, p. 3).

Step 4. Through an iterative process, the developersused their judgment to place the 32 items into a five-category model: personal mastery, managing processes,managing resources, leadership, and managing relation-ships. This proved a very workable and understand-able model, but it had not been subjected to validationresearch. This step was seen as important to confirm-ing the value of the LCI for diverse industries.

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls 43

The LCI also has four open-ended questions (related toother important competencies, prior training and devel-opment experience, job responsibilities, and current organizational challenges).The present study did not an-alyze responses to the four open-ended questions. Respon-dents indicate the degree of importance and developmentneed for each of the 32 competency items by using a five-point Likert scale. Results are reported at the group, ratherthan individual, level and include feedback on individualcompetencies as well as competency clusters.

PROCEDURE

The LCI is administered to members of client organiza-tions by a PSUCaPE faculty-administrator team usingLCI packets. Typically, the packets include administra-tion instructions, 20 forms for individuals (I) and 5forms for managers (M). The process includes severalsteps, from confirming that the LCI would be appro-priate for the client, through pre- and postadministra-tion meetings with the faculty-administrator team,processing the results, and producing summary reports(PSUCaPE, 2007). As part of their preparation forusing the LCI, people expected to be involved in LCIadministration were trained by three experienced PSU-CaPE faculty members, including two of the three LCIdevelopers. The 323 cases used for the current validationstudy were drawn from LCIs that were administeredfollowing the prescribed process by individuals trainedin the use of the LCI.

DATA ANALYSIS

The decision was made to use the development need datafor the current research. Exploratory factor analysis(EFA) was implemented using SPSS 17.0. Principal axisfactoring followed by promax rotation was used becausepromax rotation is generally conducted when the factorsmight be correlated (Stevens, 2002). The eigenvalue cri-terion (Kaiser, 1960) was used to determine the numberof factors.

To test reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) was used. Cronbach’s alpha measureof internal consistency determines the degree to which eachitem measures a latent factor or construct (Crocker &Algina, 1986). The coefficient of items for each factorand the overall scale was examined. In addition to theinternal consistency reliability test, the impact of each

Step 5. The LCI was reviewed by three additional,highly experienced PSUCaPE faculty members,and they were in agreement about the soundnessof the LCI competencies and the five-categorymodel.

Step 6. The tool was pilot-tested with a sample ofclients to confirm its soundness. Their feedback led tominor changes in wording of the competencies anddefinitions to ensure understandability, clarity, and appropriateness.

Validation Method

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 323 individuals from 11 health care–relatedorganizations were drawn from a larger dataset, becausethis population exclusively satisfied the minimum num-ber required for factor analyses. The individuals weresupervisors or managers. Nine of the organizations were hospitals, which, according to the North AmericanIndustry Classification System (NAICS; Office of Man-agement and Budget, 2007), are under the health careand social assistance industry. The other two organiza-tions were nursing homes, which, although classifiedby NAICS under the real estate and rental and leasingcategory, were considered health care organizations forpurposes of this study. In terms of organizational sizes,42 (13.0%), 41 (12.7%), 48 (14.9%), and 192 (59.4%)people came from organizations with 1–100, 101–500,501–1,000, and 1,001–5,000 employees, respectively.The data did not include gender, age, or ethnic back-ground information because it was not relevant to theinitial purpose of the LCI administration and was notcollected at the point of administration.

INSTRUMENT

The LCI has two parallel forms: Form “I” (individual) formembers of the group for whom the assessment is tar-geted, and Form “M” (manager) for people who super-vise members of the target population. This study usedthe data obtained via Form I. In completing the LCI, re-spondents indicate the degree of perceived importance ofeach of the 32 competencies to job performance and thedegree of their need for development in that competency.

44 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls

item on the reliability of the corresponding factor andthe whole scale was evaluated. The corrected item-totalcorrelation for each item in LCI was calculated. A lowitem-total correlation explains that a specific item is lessrelevant to the factor or the overall scale and would re-duce the reliability of the scale (Nunnally, 1978).

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performedusing Lisrel 8.80 to assess the model fit. CFA is the mostappropriate approach to measure the internal structureof the relations between proposed latent variables andobserved measurement items (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). The primary purpose ofthe CFA is to identify how well measured variables rep-resent the proposed factors on the basis of collected data(Byrne, 1998; Kline, 2005; Thompson, 2004). To deter-mine the soundness of the model fit, factor loadingsand t-values were examined. In addition, five model-fitindices were considered to examine the psychometricproperties between the proposed factor structure andthe collected data in terms of model-data fit: �2 (chi-square), RMSEA (root mean square error of approxi-mation), GFI (goodness of fit index), NNFI(non-normed fit index), CFI (comparative fit index),and SRMR (standardized root mean square residual).

Results and Discussions

DETERMINATION OF UNDERLYINGCONSTRUCTS THROUGH EXPLORATORYFACTOR ANALYSIS

From the EFA, a four-factor structure was identified;the solution accounts for 58% of the variance. Afterconsidering the characteristics of the items under eachfactor, the four identified factors were named as super-visory/managerial (SM) competencies, organizationalleadership (OL), personal mastery (PM), and resourceleadership (RL). Table 1 shows the factor loadings foreach factor using the descriptive labels from the LCI.

In general, factor loadings of 0.40 or greater are usedas a criterion for including an item in a certain factor. Allitems were larger than 0.40 except for the managing di-verse workforce item under the supervisory/ managerialcompetencies factor. However, the managing diverse work-force item could be included in the supervisory/manage-rial competencies because the factor loading is 0.38, whichis very close to 0.40. Using this approach, SM consisted

of 12 competencies: teamwork and cooperation, flexibilityand resilience, decisiveness, problem solving, self-direction,customer focus, leadership and coaching, influencing andnegotiating, interpersonal relationship building, conflictmanagement, management controls, and managing diverseworkforce. OL included nine: strategic thinking and plan-ning, leading change, planning and evaluation, vision, ex-ternal awareness, technology management, humanperformance management, financial management andbudgeting, and creative thinking. PM consists of seven:oral communications, written communications, conceptualthinking, interpersonal competence, learning and informa-tion, self-responsibility and management, and understandssystems. Lastly, RL included four: technical competence, re-source management, computer and basic literacy, and resource usage.

The four identified factors are reflective of some priorstudies. The competencies of the MEF were groupedinto three leadership hierarchies: supervisors, managers,and executives (Flanders & Utterback, 1985). SM andOL may reflect the conception of the MEF, even thoughthe present study did not separate results for managersand supervisors. Items under the PM factor were simi-lar to items under the foundation skills domain in theSCANS report (SCANS, 1992). PSUCaPE (2007) alsohad the personal mastery category, which was determinedby the developers of the LCI. For the RL, the SCANSreport also had resources and technology categories(SCANS, 1992), and PSUCaPE (2007) had the man-aging resources category. These findings may suggest thatcategories of leadership competencies can be adjustedaccording to target populations.

RELIABILITY TEST

Table 2 shows the summary of results from Cronbach’salpha coefficient test and corrected item-total correlations.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each factor rangedfrom 0.776 to 0.924. The coefficient for the overall scalewas 0.955. This gives confidence that the reliability fornewly defined factors and the overall scale are accept-able (Briggs & Cheek, 1986). The corrected item-totalcorrelations for each item in the LCI ranged from 0.435to 0.735. An item-total correlation of 0.3 or less is oftenused for determining the cut-off point (Wong, Chan, &Lau, 2008). Therefore, the results of the corrected item-total correlation were also found to be acceptable.

Table 1. Promax Rotated Factor Matrix Showing Factor Loadings for the 32 LCI Competencies

Factor 1: Factor 2: Factor 3: Factor 4: Supervisory/Managerial Organizational Personal Resource

Variable Competencies Leadership Mastery Management

Teamwork and cooperation (20) 0.800 0.035 0.018 �0.084

Flexibility and resilience (13) 0.798 �0.090 �0.108 0.065

Decisiveness (15) 0.718 �0.027 �0.055 0.128

Problem solving (14) 0.680 �0 078 �0 015 0.203

Self-direction (16) 0.661 0.182 �0 080 0.036

Customer focus (24) 0.652 �0.007 0.153 �0.078

Leadership and coaching (12) 0.646 �0.016 0.054 0.157

Influencing and negotiating (21) 0.627 0.267 �0.029 �0.115

Interpersonal relationship building (11) 0.547 0.058 0.228 �0.258

Conflict management (19) 0.466 �0.028 0.390 �0.054

Management controls (25) 0.448 0.232 0.004 0.133

Managing diverse workforce (18) 0.379 0.192 0.064 0.172

Strategic thinking and planning (31) �0.068 0.796 0.090 �0.058

Leading change (32) 0.040 0.710 0.191 �0.174

Planning and evaluation (23) 0.179 0.648 �0.165 0.144

Vision (29) �0.186 0.616 �0.113 0.240

External awareness (30) �0.198 0.586 �0.135 0.450

Technology management (27) 0.214 0.558 0.099 �0.128

Human performance management (22) 0.135 0.548 0.056 0.050

Financial management and budgeting (26) 0.080 0.497 0.221 �0.033

Creative thinking (28) 0.283 0.491 �0.044 �0.002

Oral communications (9) �0.133 0.160 0.735 0.000

Written communications (10) �0.019 0.113 0.682 0.041

Conceptual thinking (2) 0.072 �0.124 0.601 0.194

Interpersonal competence (5) 0.284 �0.121 0.527 0.092

Learning and information (3) �0.126 0.133 0.511 0.366

Self-responsibility and management (4) 0.096 �0.064 0.503 0.322

Understands systems (8) 0.289 �0.146 0.460 0.214

Technical competence (6) 0.027 0.037 0.94 0.618

Resource management (17) �0.095 �0.013 0.202 0.550

Computer and basic literacy (1) 0.301 0.047 �0.040 0.533

Resource usage (7) 0.080 0.063 0.274 0.443

Eigenvalues 13.589 2.238 1.685 1.214

Percentage of variance 42.467 6.994 5.264 3.794

Note: The number following each competency indicates the original item number. Factor loadings greater than 0.40 are shown in boldface.

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Item-Total Correlations With Subscales and Total Scale

Corrected Item-TotalCorrected Item-Total Correlation

Variable M SD Correlation (in a Subscale) (in the Main Scale)

Interpersonal relationship building (11) 2.684 1.228 0.661 0.677

Leadership and coaching (12) 2.988 1.131 0.691 0.653

Flexibility and resilience (13) 2.777 1.211 0.659 0.603

Problem solving (14) 2.746 1.122 0.735 0.722

Decisiveness (15) 2.820 1.158 0.705 0.667

Self-direction (16) 2.641 1.203 0.686 0.677

Managing diverse workforce (18) 2.514 1.183 0.625 0.663

Conflict management (19) 3.127 1.192 0.588 0.546

Teamwork and cooperation (20) 2.786 1.251 0.752 0.704

Influencing and negotiating (21) 2.873 1.095 0.681 0.670

Customer focus (24) 2.762 1.267 0.714 0.696

Management controls (25) 2.588 1.159 0.658 0.682

Supervisory/Managerial Competencies (Cronbach’s a � 0.924)

Human performance management (22) 2.882 1.213 0.613 0.600

Planning and evaluation (23) 2.972 1.082 0.705 0.627

Financial management and budgeting (26) 3.152 1.367 0.503 0.375

Technology management (27) 2.873 1.100 0.615 0.615

Creative thinking (28) 2.842 1.157 0.646 0.616

Vision (29) 2.916 1.082 0.640 0.624

External awareness (30) 2.972 1.093 0.710 0.583

Strategic thinking and planning (31) 2.960 1.180 0.689 0.614

Leading change (32) 2.997 1.160 0.540 0.468

Organizational Leadership (Cronbach’s a � 0.880)

Conceptual thinking (2) 2.433 1.202 0.713 0.663

Learning and information (3) 2.443 1.273 0.676 0.650

Self-responsibility and management (4) 2.963 1.192 0.652 0.592

Interpersonal competence (5) 2.632 1.220 0.685 0.645

Understands systems (8) 2.718 1.085 0.658 0.583

Oral communications (9) 2.786 1.019 0.689 0.661

Written communications (10) 2.746 1.059 0.660 0.650

Personal Mastery (Cronbach’s a � 0.885)

Computer and basic literacy (1) 2.793 1.144 0.510 0.435

Technical competence (6) 2.613 1.129 0.617 0.545

Resource usage (7) 2.762 1.129 0.597 0.644

Resource management (17) 2.690 1.122 0.595 0.635

Resource Leadership (Cronbach’s a � 0.776)

Leadership Competency (Cronbach’s a � 0.955)

Note: The number following each competency indicates the original item number.

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls 47

According to the results of the higher-order CFAanalysis, chi-square estimates were repeatedly statisti-cally significant (�2 [460] � 1162.00; �2/df � 2.52;p � 0.001), because of the sensitivity of the chi-squareto the large sample size (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen,2008). Additional indices provide statistically accept-able model-fit estimates (GFI � 0.82; CFI � 0.97;NNFI � 0.97), and the small magnitude of error termestimates also supports the factor structure of the pro-posed measurement model being well defined(RMSEA � 0.069; SRMR � 0.058).

According to the two separate CFA results, the modelfit of the four latent factors of leadership competencyinventory with the 32 items was confirmed to be ap-propriate, which indicates that the factor structuremodel of the proposed measurement scales is valid.

Conclusions and Recommendationsfor Future ResearchThe results show the LCI to possess sound reliability andvalidity for the population of health care supervisorsand managers studied. Beyond its efficacy with healthcare populations, the LCI was designed to be used withany private and public sector organization, even thoughit is based on research originally conducted on federalgovernment populations. According to Thach andThompson (2007), “In general, the literature suggeststhat there is a set of common leadership competenciesthat are appropriate for any type of organization,whether it be for-profit, non-profit, or governmental”(p. 360). Donahue (1996) confirmed that the OPMmodel is applicable to private industry with a modifica-tion. OPM also ensured that their leadership compe-tencies are relevant to models outside of the government(Rodriguez et al., 2002). Thus, there is a possibility thatthe LCI can be useful with a variety of organizationtypes.

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

According to the theoretical properties of the LCI andthe results of the exploratory analyses, four latent factorswere defined to measure leadership competency areas.As a next step, two stages of CFA analysis were per-formed. First, higher-order CFA uses the four latent fac-tors that are identified as subfactors of overall leadershipcompetency. General CFA processes then use the 32items that measure each of the proposed latent factors.

Factor loadings were examined, and the results of thegeneral CFA show that all factor loadings were statisti-cally acceptable (factor loadings ranged from 0.50 to0.77; t-values ranged from 8.90 to 14.00). Table 3 showsthe soundness of the model-fit in relation to the data set.

According to the results, general model-fit estimateswere statistically acceptable in terms of well-definedmodel-data fit. Approximately 82% of variances andcovariances of the proposed measurement model couldbe explained by the collected datasets (GFI � 0.82).Furthermore, two indices of error term detections sup-port a small magnitude of the residuals of the proposed measurement model (RMSEA � 0.068 andSRMR � 0.055). The chi-square estimates were statis-tically significant, which indicates lack of appropriatefit between proposed measurement model and collecteddatasets. However, using the chi-square test of modelfit for this research may not be appropriate, because afairly large sample size was used (n � 323) in this re-search (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). In addi-tion, several model fit indices confirmed a statisticallyacceptable fit of data to the factor structure of the pro-posed measurement model.

Moreover, a higher-order CFA analysis was conductedto ensure unidimensionality of the leadership compe-tency inventory, based on the rationale that the fourproposed latent factors are measuring general leader-ship competencies (Hair et al., 2006; Kline, 2005). Allstandardized factor loadings are illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 3. Single-Order CFA Results

Model df �2 �2/df GFI CFI NNFI RMSEA SRMR

4 domains 458 1134.89** 4.47 0.82 0.97 0.97 0.068 0.055

Note: ** �0.01.

48 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls

data is desirable, as a means of cross-validating the LCI’sfactor structure. Finally, it may be worthwhile to reassessand update the competencies by reflecting on the mostrecent changes in society and the workplace. From abroader perspective, researchers and practitioners shouldconduct development and validation research on theirown unique contexts because organizational culture andneeds vary widely from organization to organization.

ReferencesBass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). Transformational leadership de-velopment: Manual for the multifactor leadership questionnaire. PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bernthal, P. R., Colteryahn, K., Davis, P., Naughton, J., Rothwell,W. J., & Wellins, R. (2004). Mapping the future: New workplacelearning and performance competencies. Alexandria, VA: AmericanSociety for Training and Development.

There remains a need for continued research into theLCI, including further validation and updating. Thecurrent study was limited to the health care industryand so the four LCI factors have been validated onlyfor this population. In addition, only the developmentneeds data were used for this study. If the importancedata were used, the factor structure might well turn outdifferently. Moreover, the fact that two foundationalstudies upon which the LCI was based were conductedin 1992 could raise a time-related validity argument,even though the competencies are reviewed by expertswith contemporary perspectives.

Three directions for future research are suggested.First, further validation research is necessary to deter-mine whether the four defined factors are valid for othermajor industries such as manufacturing and public serv-ice. Second, a validation study using the importance

Leadershipcompetencies

Supervisory/managerial

0.93

0.71 0.66 0.77 0.55

0.67

0.75

0.74

0.74

0.68

0.73

0.70

0.75

0.72

0.74

0.51

0.68

0.72

0.71

0.75

0.76

0.55

sm1 ol1 pm1 rl1

rl2

rl3

rl4

pm2

pm3

pm4

pm5

pm6

pm7

ol2

ol3

ol4

ol5

ol6

ol7

ol8

ol9

sm2

sm3

sm4

sm5

sm6

sm7

sm8

sm9

sm10

sm11

sm12

0.71

0.68

0.77

0.74

0.73

0.67

0.60

0.77

0.71

0.74

0.70

0.78 0.90 0.87

Organizationalleadership

Personalmastery

Resourceleadership

Figure 1. Standardized Factor Loading Estimates of a Higher Order CFA

Note: T-Value estimates of all standardized factor-loading estimates range from 8.36to 13.82.

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls 49

Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis inthe development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Per-sonality, 54, 106–148.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL,PRELIS, and SIMMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and program-ming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carter, L., Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Linkage Inc.’s bestpractices in leadership development handbook: Case studies, instru-ments, training (1st ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. (2001). The leadership pipeline.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and mod-ern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure oftests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

Dansereau, F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentalitytheory and equity theory as complementary approaches in predict-ing the relationship of leadership and turnover among managers.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10(2), 184–200.

Donahue, W. E. (1996). A descriptive analysis of the perceived im-portance of leadership competencies to practicing electrical engineers inCentral Pennsylvania. Available from ProQuest Dissertations andTheses database. (UMI No. 9702284)

Drucker, P. F., & Garvin, D. A. (1998). Harvard business review onknowledge management. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Dubois, D. D., & Rothwell, W. J. (2004). Competency-based humanresource management. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

Eichinger, R. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (2003). Knowledge sum-mary series: 360-degree assessment. Human Resource Planning,26(4), 34–44.

Flanders, L. R., & Utterback, D. (1985). The management excel-lence inventory: A tool for management development. Public Ad-ministration Review, 45, 403–410.

Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy per-formance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approachto leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) the-ory of leadership over 25 years—Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

Gregory, D. J., & Park, R. K. (1992, January). Occupational studyof federal executives, managers, & supervisors: An application of theMultipurpose Occupational Systems Analysis Inventory—Closed Ended(Mosaic) (PRD-92-21). Washington, DC: U.S. Office of PersonnelManagement, Employment Service, Personnel Resources and Devel-opment Center.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham,R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structuralequation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Elec-tronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. Retrievedfrom http://www.ejbrm.com/vol6/v6-i1/Hooperetal.pdf

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition:Advancing age and changing times. New York: Guilford Press.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to fac-tor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equationmodeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Lentz, L. (1993). Development of a management skills model for theDepartment of Labor and Industry. Unpublished report, Harrisburg:Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.

Leslie, J. B., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998). Feedback to managers: A reviewand comparison of multi-rater instruments for management develop-ment (3rd ed.). Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Morical, K. E. (1999). A product review: 360 assessments. Training &Development, 53(4), 43.

Naquin, S. S., & Holton, E. F. (2006). Leadership and managerialcompetency models: A simplified process and resulting model. Ad-vances in Developing Human Resources, 8(2), 144–165.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978), Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Office of Management and Budget. (2007). North American indus-try classification system. Washington, DC: Author.

Pennsylvania State University Continuing and Professional Educa-tion (PSUCaPE). (2007). Penn State Leadership Competency Inven-tory: Administration Instructions. University Park: Author.

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1988). Development and valida-tion of the leadership practices inventory. Educational and Psycholog-ical Measurement, 48, 483–496.

Posner, B. Z., & Kouzes, J. M. (1993). Psychometric properties ofthe leadership practices inventory-updated. Educational and Psycho-logical Measurement, 53, 191–199.

Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D., & Gowing, M. K.(2002). Developing competency models to promote integrated humanresource practices. Human Resource Management, 41, 309–324.

Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS).(1992). Skills and tasks for jobs: A SCANS report for America 2000.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

50 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 4 • Number 3 • DOI:10.1002/jls

Form A (DAS-A) in a community sample. International Journal ofPsychiatry in Medicine, 38, 141–152.

Hyung Joon Yoon is a Ph.D. candidate in human resourcedevelopment and organization development at the Pennsylvania State University. He can be reached atdrmtree@psu.edu.

Ji Hoon Song is an assistant professor at Oklahoma StateUniversity. He holds a Ph.D. in training and human re-sources from the Pennsylvania State University. His e-mailaddress is jihoon.song@okstate.edu.

Wesley E. Donahue is the director of Business, Engineering,and Technology Programs and associate professor of WorkforceEducation and Development Program at the PennsylvaniaState University. He earned a Ph.D. in workforce educa-tion from Penn State. He can be reached at wed105@psu.edu.

Katheryn K. Woodley is associate professor, ManagementDevelopment Programs, Pennsylvania State University. Sheearned a Ph.D. in industrial-organizational psychologyfrom Union Graduate School. She can be contacted atkkw1@outreach.psu.edu.

Spenser, L. M., & Spenser, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Mod-els for superior performance. New York: Wiley.

Stevens, J. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences.Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Leader behavior: Itsdescription and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University Col-lege of Administrative Science.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a lead-ership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36(2), 95–101.

Thach, E., & Thompson, K. J. (2007). Trading places: Examiningleadership competencies between for-profit vs. public and non-profitleaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 356–375.

Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis:Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). (2007). Delegated ex-amining operations handbook: A guide for federal agency examiningoffices. Washington, DC. Retrieved September 5, 2009, fromhttp://www.opm.gov/deu/Handbook_2007/DEO_Handbook.pdf

U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Human Resources Devel-opment Group, & Office of Executive and Management Policy.(1993). Leadership effectiveness framework and inventory. Unpub-lished report. Washington, DC: Author.

Wong, D. F. K., Chan, K. S., & Lau, Y. (2008). The reliability andvalidity of the Chinese version of the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale