AIM: This paper is a report of a study to develop and test the psychometric properties of the Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy for Nurses Scale. BACKGROUND: Coping self-efficacy beliefs are defined as self-appraisals of capabilities to cope with environmental demands. People with higher levels of coping self-efficacy beliefs tend to approach challenging situations in an active and persistent way, whereas those with lower levels of coping self-efficacy beliefs tend to direct greater energy to managing increasing emotional distress. METHOD: In 2006, 1383 nurses completed the following measures: Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Nurses, Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations Short Form and Maslach Burnout Inventory. Based on a randomized split of the data, we conducted exploratory factor analysis on group 1 data (n = 691) and confirmatory factor analysis within the framework of structural equation modelling on group 2 data (n = 692). FINDINGS: The exploratory results revealed two factors: Coping Self-Efficacy to cope with the occupational burden (Cronbach alpha = 0.77) and Coping Self-Efficacy to cope with the relational burden (alpha = 0.79). In the confirmatory group, the two-factor structure was tested against an alternative one-factor structure and confirmed as the best solution. Correlation patterns between the Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy for Nurses Scales, and both coping and burnout variables, supported the criterion-related validity of the Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy for Nurses dimensions. CONCLUSION: Nurses can have two basic and distinct coping self-efficacy beliefs: beliefs about occupational burden and beliefs about relational difficulties in the workplace. Research is needed into how efficacy evaluations shift as a result of specific stress management interventions.
AIM: This paper is a report of a study to develop and test the psychometric properties of the Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy for Nurses Scale. BACKGROUND: Coping self-efficacy beliefs are defined as self-appraisals of capabilities to cope with environmental demands. People with higher levels of coping self-efficacy beliefs tend to approach challenging situations in an active and persistent way, whereas those with lower levels of coping self-efficacy beliefs tend to direct greater energy to managing increasing emotional distress. METHOD: In 2006, 1383 nurses completed the following measures: Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Nurses, Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations Short Form and Maslach Burnout Inventory. Based on a randomized split of the data, we conducted exploratory factor analysis on group 1 data (n = 691) and confirmatory factor analysis within the framework of structural equation modelling on group 2 data (n = 692). FINDINGS: The exploratory results revealed two factors: Coping Self-Efficacy to cope with the occupational burden (Cronbach alpha = 0.77) and Coping Self-Efficacy to cope with the relational burden (alpha = 0.79). In the confirmatory group, the two-factor structure was tested against an alternative one-factor structure and confirmed as the best solution. Correlation patterns between the Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy for Nurses Scales, and both coping and burnout variables, supported the criterion-related validity of the Occupational Coping Self-Efficacy for Nurses dimensions. CONCLUSION: Nurses can have two basic and distinct coping self-efficacy beliefs: beliefs about occupational burden and beliefs about relational difficulties in the workplace. Research is needed into how efficacy evaluations shift as a result of specific stress management interventions.
Authors: Heather K Spence Laschinger; Carol Wong; Emily Read; Greta Cummings; Michael Leiter; Maura Macphee; Sandra Regan; Ann Rhéaume-Brüning; Judith Ritchie; Vanessa Burkoski; Doris Grinspun; Mary Ellen Gurnham; Sherri Huckstep; Lianne Jeffs; Sandra Macdonald-Rencz; Maurio Ruffolo; Judith Shamian; Angela Wolff; Carol Young-Ritchie; Kevin Wood Journal: Nurs Open Date: 2018-12-19
Authors: Wilhelmina F J M van den Oetelaar; Corné A M Roelen; Wilko Grolman; Rebecca K Stellato; Willem van Rhenen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Grażyna Iwanowicz-Palus; Mariola Mróz; Krystyna Kowalczuk; Beata Szlendak; Agnieszka Bień; Mateusz Cybulski Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 4.614