Abstract
Purpose In a psychologically safe environment, individuals feel safe to share thoughts, acknowledge errors, experiment with new ideas, and exhibit mutual respect. However, there is little consensus on how psychological safety should be measured and the constructs that make up psychological safety. This meta-analysis and systematic review sought to evaluate the quality of measures used to assess psychological safety.
Methodology The meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted using Cochrane’s guidelines as a framework for data synthesis. A total of 217 studies were included in this review.
Findings Across 217 studies, the average internal consistency value ranged from Cronbach’s alpha of .77 to .81, with considerable heterogeneities across samples (I2 = 99.92, Q[221] = 259632.32, p < .001). Together, findings suggest that the quality of existing measures evaluating psychological safety may be acceptable.
Originality There is room for improvement with respect to examinations of factor structures within psychological safety, the degree of association between psychological safety and other constructs, and opportunities for exploring similarities and differences across populations and contexts.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
