Luppo Kuillman

Facilitating and motivating factors for reporting reprehensible conduct 99 4 In methodological terms, another strength of our study is the sample size—155 respondents—which is well above the minimum required for moderation analysis ( n =68) (Faul et al., 2009). In addition, despite the cross-sectional nature of the data, the Harman’s single-factor analysis indicated that a single factor accounted for only 28.7% of the total variance. Given the maximum threshold of 50%, common-method variance thus had little or no effect on the conclusions (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Our study is also subject to several limitations. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data did not allow us to assess the stability (i.e., test-retest) of the instruments. Second, even though the correlations between RRC, EA, and BCPH were statistically significant, their explained variances were relatively low. It should therefore be clear that many other factors —which were not included in this study —could explain or influence whistleblowing behavior. Further exploration is therefore needed. Another possible limitation has to do with the low reliability of the two vignettes in the RCC measure (Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.51). As previously described, however, the mean inter-item correlation (MIIC) of 0.34 fell well within the specified range (≥.25 to ≤.55), thereby indicating an acceptable level of homogeneity for the two vignettes. (Boyle, 1991) Nevertheless, the inclusion of more vignettes could offer a solution for achieving a high Cronbach’s alpha value (Clark & Watson, 1995; Cortina, 1993). According to the formula proposed by Nunally (page 225) for estimating the number of items ( k ) necessary to obtain the required alpha value of 0.80, the current RRC scale should be extended with six vignettes that tap particular aspects of the underlying construct (Nunnally, 1967). This provides an avenue for continuing research on this specific indicator of whistleblowing within the context of healthcare. IMPLICATIONS The healthcare landscape is changing rapidly. More specifically, patients are becoming more vocal, measures are being taken to keep care affordable, and sociodemographic processes (including population aging) are exerting pressure on the balance between the demand for and supply of care. All of these factors are combining to increase the prevalence of situations in which moral considerations come into play. According to our results, behavioral control targeted at preventing harm (BCPH) plays a pivotal role in the ethical decision-making process. More specifically, BCPH acts as a facilitator, strengthening the relationship between ethics advocacy and the likelihood of reporting