Leanne S Cowin1, Maree Johnson, Ian Wilson, Kaye Borgese. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 2751 Australia. l.cowin@uws.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers have yet to fully explore and adequately measure Professional Identity (PI) in nursing. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to examine the psychometrics of five measures of PI and compare these results in first and third year nursing students. As a consequence of utilising multiple self-assessed survey tools this study also examines common methods bias. DESIGN: The study utilised an on-line survey to gather responses from nursing students. METHODS: The pilot study examined the validity and reliability of the five measures while investigating the potential for common methods bias. RESULTS: All five measures tested demonstrated poorer psychometric properties or model fits for this sample than those reported by their original authors. One measure demonstrated a small mean score increase from first to third year, while all others revealed a fall from first to third year, although these were not significant. Harman's tests performed on all scales were negative for common methods bias. CONCLUSIONS: A psychometrically strong measure of PI was not determined however, this may relate to the sample size in this pilot study. The fall of PI from first to third year and the factors that influence such change may have implications for the recruitment and retention of nurses.
BACKGROUND: Researchers have yet to fully explore and adequately measure Professional Identity (PI) in nursing. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to examine the psychometrics of five measures of PI and compare these results in first and third year nursing students. As a consequence of utilising multiple self-assessed survey tools this study also examines common methods bias. DESIGN: The study utilised an on-line survey to gather responses from nursing students. METHODS: The pilot study examined the validity and reliability of the five measures while investigating the potential for common methods bias. RESULTS: All five measures tested demonstrated poorer psychometric properties or model fits for this sample than those reported by their original authors. One measure demonstrated a small mean score increase from first to third year, while all others revealed a fall from first to third year, although these were not significant. Harman's tests performed on all scales were negative for common methods bias. CONCLUSIONS: A psychometrically strong measure of PI was not determined however, this may relate to the sample size in this pilot study. The fall of PI from first to third year and the factors that influence such change may have implications for the recruitment and retention of nurses.
Authors: Ion Ovidiu Panisoara; Iulia Lazar; Georgeta Panisoara; Ruxandra Chirca; Anca Simona Ursu Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.390