Survey Validation for Measuring Perceptions of Work-Related Factors That Influence Career Paths of Men and Women in Academic Anesthesiology.

Background: Women's underrepresentation in positions of leadership in medicine has been attributed to environmental, structural, motivational, and situational factors. The purpose of this study was to design and validate a survey instrument based on these constructs, using a sample of men and women anesthesiologists from 3 urban academic medical centers.

Methods: Following institutional review board review, survey domains were defined based on a literature review. Items were developed, and content validation was performed by external experts. Anesthesiologists at 3 academic institutions were invited to complete the anonymous survey. Validation measures were performed on the collected responses, including reliability, convergent, and discriminant validity. In addition, differences between men and women respondents were evaluated.

Results: Content validation by external experts yielded 38 items with 5-point Likert scales, defining 3 constructs: environmental (14 items), structural (13 items), and motivational (11 items) factors, with single-item measures on situational factors. Content validity indices used Cohen's Kappa coefficients, with 0.85 as the acceptance cutoff. Two hundred seventy-four anesthesiologists in 3 academic institutions received the online survey. One hundred fifteen responses were received (42% response rate), yielding 103 complete survey responses, of which 86 cases included gender. Cronbach's α reliability estimates for the environmental, structural, and motivational scale scores were .88, .84, and .64, respectively, after scale revision. Evidence of convergent (Pearson's r = 0.68; P < .001) and discriminant validity (Pearson's r = 0.017; P = .84) confirmed theoretical expectations. Gender group differences showed statistically significant differences in perceptions toward environmental but not toward structural and motivational factors.

Conclusions: The iterative design and validation processes yielded a 3-scale survey instrument with parsimonious item sets. The preliminary evidence of construct validity and reliability fills a gap in the instrumentation literature for assessing gender issues in medicine. Findings were consistent with theoretical expectations. Women are more likely than men to experience challenges in the work environment for career advancement. No differences were found between men and women on perceived resources and overall motivation factors. Investigations should continue with larger and more diverse samples and medical specialties.