Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2026
Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Hyperscanning Study in Psychological Counseling
Published on: January 17, 2025
[Structure validity of an occupational commitment scale for traditional Chinese medical practitioners]
Lu-rong Liu1, Chang-ji Li, Yun-fang Long
1Department of Occupational Health, West China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Objective:
To test the structure validity of an occupational commitment scale for traditional Chinese medical (TCM) practitioners.
Methods:
Based on in-depth interviews with 18 TCM practitioners and an open-ended questionnaire survey of 67 TCM practitioners, an occupational commitment scale was developed. The questionnaire was tested in 324 TCM practitioners and revised after an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The revised questionnaire was tested again in another 507 TCM practitioners. A measurement model (structural equation model) by confirmation factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the construct validity of the questionnaire. The occupational change intention was used to verify the criterion-related validity of the questionnaire. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested with Cronbach's alpha coefficient.
Results:
The EFA indicated that the occupational commitment scale consisted of four components from 13 items. The cumulative contribution of the four components reached 61.437%. The factor loading of each item attached to the relevant common factor ranged from 0.591 to 0.861. The CFA indicated a good fit of construct, with 1.79, 0.039, 0.97, 0.97, 0.98, and 0.72 fit index for chi2/ df, RMSEA, GFI, NNFI, CFI, and PNFI respectively. The occupational change intention correlated with the componets of occupational commitment negatively (P < 0.01). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the questionnaire and the four components ranged from 0.602 to 0.847.
Conclusion:
The occupational commitment scale for TCM practitioners has a valid structure of four dimensions, measuring affective commitment, limited alternatives commitment, professional self-efficacy commitment and occupational risk commitment. The questionnaire is valid and reliable.
