Su Ol Kim; Younhee Kang

doi:10.7469/kjan.2016.28.5.585

Journal List > Korean J Adult Nurs > v.28(5) > 1076424

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Kim and Kang: A Prediction Model on the Male Nurses’ Turnover Intention

Original Article

Korean J Adult Nurs 2016;28(5):585-594.

Published online: NaN October 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7469/kjan.2016.28.5.585

A Prediction Model on the Male Nurses’ Turnover Intention

Su Ol Kim, Ph.D., RN¹, Younhee Kang, Ph.D., ANP^2,

^¹Department of Nursing Science, Graduate School, Ewha Womans University, Seoul

^²Professor, College of Nursing, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Kang, Younhee College of Nursing, Ewha Womans University, 52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3277-4483, Fax: +82-2-3277-2850, E-mail: yxk12@ewha.ac.kr

Received 10 July 201611 October 2016 Accepted 24 October 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to develop and test a predictive model on the male nurses’ turnover intention.

Methods

This study utilized the model-testing design based on the Price's causal model of turnover. This study collected data from 306 male nurses on a national scale with structured questionnaires measuring job opportunity, kinship responsibility, positive emotion, work autonomy, role conflict, work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. The data were analyzed using SPSS/WIN 22.0 program and AMOS 20.0 program.

Results

As the outcomes satisfied the recommended level, the hypothetical model appeared to fit the data. Twenty-seven of the 38 hypotheses selected for the hypothetical model were statistically significant. 54.2% of turnover intention was explained by job opportunity, kinship responsibility, positive emotion, work autonomy, role conflict, work satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Conclusion

The hypothetical model of this study was confirmed to be adequate in explaining and predicting male nurses’ turnover intention. Findings from this study can be used to design appropriate strategies to decrease the male nurse's turnover intention.

Keywords: Nurse, Male, Turnover, Intention

REFERENCES

1.Al-hussami M., Darawad M., Saleh A., Hayajneh F. Predicting nurses'turnover intentions by demographic characteristics, perception of health, quality of work, and work attitudes. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2013. 20:79–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12124.

2.Cimotti JP., Aiken LH., Sloane DM., Wu ES. Nursing staffing, burnout, and health care-associated infection. American Journal of Infection Control. 2012. 40:486–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.02.029.

3.Spetz J., Harless DW., Herrera CN., Mark BA. Using minimum nurse staffing regulations to measure the relationship between nursing and hospital quality of care. Medical Care Research and Review. 2013. 70(4):380–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558713475715.

4.Sawatzky JA., Enns CL. Exploring the key predictors of retention in emergency nurses. Journal of Nursing Management. 2012. 20(5):696–707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01355.x.

5.Kim SH. Nurse state exam pass ‘man's one thousand people'. The Korean Nurses Association News. 2013 March 5. Sect. 01.

6.Kim MY. An Exploratory Study of Masculinity in Nursing. Journal of Korean Clinical nursing research. 2009. 15(2):37–46.

7.Son HM., Koh MH., Kim CM., Moon JH., Yi MS. The male nurses' experiences of adaptation in clinical setting. Journal of Korean academy of nursing. 2003. 33(1):17–25.

8.Chen SH., Yu HY., Hsu HY., Lin FC., Lou JH. Organisational support, organisational identification and organisational citizenship behaviour among male nurses. Journal of Nursing Management. 2013. 21:1072–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01449.x.

9.Almalki MJ., FitzGerald G., Clark M. The relationship between quality of work life and turnover intention of primary health care nurses in Saudi Arabia. Human Resources for Health. 2012. 12(1):314–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-314.

10.Rowlinson L. Lived experience of being a nurse from a male and female perspective. British Journal of Nursing. 2013. 22(4):218–22.

11.McMillian J., Morgan SA., Ament P. Acceptance of male registered nurses by female registered nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2006. 38(1):100–6.

12.Lee KJ., Kim MY. The relationship of gender role conflict and job satisfaction upon organizational commitment in male nurses. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2014. 26(1):46–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.1.46.

13.Ahn MK., Lee MH., Kim HK., Jeong SH. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention among male nurses. Journal of Korean academy of nursing administration. 2015. 21(2):203–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2015.21.2.203.

14.Price JL. Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of Manpower. 2001. 22(7):600–24.

15.Price JL., Mueller CW. A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal. 1981. 34:543–65.

16.Kim SW., Price JL., Mueller CW., Watson TW. The determinants of career intent among physicians at a U.S. air force hospital. Human Relations. 1996. 49(7):947–76.

17.Lee TH. An empirical study on the determinants of turnover intention of geriatric care helpers: focusing on the mediating effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. [dissertation]. Seoul: Hansung University;2013. p. 1–206.

18.Watson D., Clark LA., Tellegram A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988. 54:1063–70.

19.Breaugh JA. The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations. 1985. 38(6):551–70.

20.Rizzo JR., House RJ., Lirtzman SI. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1970. 15(2):150–63.

21.Brayfield AH., Rothe H. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1951. 35(5):1173–82.

22.Mowday RT., Steers RM., Porter LW. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocation Behavior. 1979. 14(2):224–47.

23.O'Brien-pallas L., Murphy GT., Shamiran J., Li X., Hayes LJ. Impact and determinants of nurse turnover: a pan-Canadian study. Journal of Nursing Management. 2010. 18(8):1073–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01167.x.

24.Lee EH., Cho KS., Son HM., Yi YJ., Yoo CS. Frequency and severity of the nurses'role conflict in the hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Clinical nursing research. 2013. 19(1):81–95.

25.Brooks BA., Storfjell J., Omoike O., Ohlson S., Stemler L., Shaver J, et al. Assessing the quality of nursing work life. Nursing Administration Quarterly. 2007. 31(2):152–7.

26.Ryu YO., Ko E. Influence of emotional labor and nursing professional values on job satisfaction in small and medium-sized hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2015. 22(1):7–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2015.22.1.7.

27.Clow KA., Ricciardelli R., Bartfay WJ. Attitudes and stereotypes of male and female nurses: The influence of social roles and ambivalent sexism. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2014. 46(3):446–55.

28.Price JL., Mueller CW. Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.;;1986.

29.Downing SM. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Medical Education. 2004. 38(9):1006–12.

30.Kath LM., Stichler JF., Ehrhart MG., Schultze TA. Predictors and outcomes of nurse leader job stress experienced by assocoation of women's health members. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing. 2013. 42(1):12–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2012.01430.x.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Figure 2.

Path diagram of the hypothetical model including control variable.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (N=306)

Variables	M±SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	Range
Job opportunity	8.70±2.38	1.49	-0.73	3~15
Kinship responsibility	5.29±1.65	1.19	-1.50	2~10
Positive emotion	16.31±3.11	-2.34	2.32	5~25
Work autonomy	11.45±2.98	-0.80	-1.02	4~20
Role conflict	10.87±2.73	2.26	-0.19	4~20
Work satisfaction	12.98±2.80	-1.83	1.25	4~20
Organizational commitment	22.93±4.53	-0.99	1.16	7~35
Turnover intention	12.51±3.43	0.60	-1.62	4~20

Table 2.

Fit Index of the Hypothetical Model

Model	x² (p)	DF	Normed x²	GFI	AGFI	CFI	NFI	IFI	SRMR	RMSEA
Acceptance criteria	(p＞.05)		≤3	.90~1	.90~1	.90~1	.90~1	.90~1	≤.05	≤.08
Hypothetic Model	0	0	0	1.00	-	1.00	1.00	1.00	0	.33
Modified Model	8.78 (.12)	5	1.76	.99	.95	.99	.99	.99	.02	.05

GFI=goodness of fit index; AGFI=adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI=comparative fit index; NFI=normed fit index; IFI=incremental fit index; SRMR=standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation.

Table 3.

Direct Effect, Indirect Effect, and Total Effect in Hypothetical Model

Endogenous variables Exogenous variables	SE	CR	p	SMC	Direct effect	p	Indirect effect	p^†	Total effect	p^†
Work satisfaction				.613		＜.001			-.11	＜.001
Job opportunity	-.13	-3.66	＜.001		-.11	＜.001			.73	＜.001
Positive emotion	.65	17.17	＜.001		.73	＜.001			.18	＜.001
Work autonomy	.19	5.25	＜.001		.18	.005			-.10	.005
Role conflict	-.10	-2.85	.005		-.10
Organizational commitment				.643
Job opportunity	-.17	-5.07	＜.001		-.14	＜.001	-.07	＜.001	-.21	＜.001
Kinship responsibility	.08	2.50	.013		.06	.013			.06	.013
Positive emotion							.46	＜.001	.46	＜.001
Work autonomy	.07	2.06	.041		.06	.041	.11	＜.001	.18	＜.001
Role conflict	-.07	-2.09	.038		-.07	.038	-.06	.005	-.14	.001
Work satisfaction	.69	17.63	＜.001		.64	＜.001			.64	＜.001
Turnover intention					.542
Job opportunity	.12	2.40	.003	.13		.003	.15	＜.001	.29	＜.001
Kinship responsibility							-.03	.022	-.03	.022
Positive emotion							-.52	＜.001	-.52	＜.001
Work autonomy							-.16	＜.001	-.16	＜.001
Role conflict	.08	1.99	.046	.10		.046	.11	.001	.21	＜.001
Work satisfaction	-.33	-5.20	＜.001	-.39		＜.001	-.327	.001	-.72	＜.001
Organizational commitment	-.38	-6.04	＜.001	-.51		＜.001			-.51	＜.001

^† Value from Bootstrapping method.

SE=Standard Estimate; CR=Critical ratio; SMC=Squared multiple correlation.

TOOLS

Similar articles