| Literature DB >> 23459140 |
Ryoko Anazawa1, Hirono Ishikawa, Kiuchi Takahiro.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The language barrier is a significant obstacle for nurses who are not native English speakers to obtain information from international journals. Freely accessible online machine translation (MT) offers a possible solution to this problem. AIM: To explore how Japanese nursing professionals use online MT and perceive its usability in reading English articles and to discuss what should be considered for better utilisation of online MT lessening the language barrier.Entities:
Keywords: Japanese nurses; language barrier; nursing literature; online machine translation; questionnaire.; usability
Year: 2013 PMID: 23459140 PMCID: PMC3580755 DOI: 10.2174/1874434601307010022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Nurs J ISSN: 1874-4346
Participant Background Information (nr = No Response)
| Variables | % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Men | 22 | 8.8 | |
| Women | 226 | 90.4 | ||
| nr | 2 | .8 | ||
| Title | Assistant | 59 | 23.6 | |
| Research Associate | 189 | 75.6 | ||
| nr | 2 | .8 | ||
| Age group | 20s | 19 | 7.6 | |
| 30s | 135 | 54 | ||
| 40s | 81 | 32.4 | ||
| 50s | 13 | 5.2 | ||
| 60s | 2 | .4 | ||
| Academic degree | Diploma | 4 | 1.6 | |
| Associate | 6 | 2.4 | ||
| Bachelor | 47 | 18.8 | ||
| Master | 171 | 68.4 | ||
| Doctoral | 20 | 8.0 | ||
| nr | 2 | .8 | ||
| English
language
proficiency ( | ≥ intermediate | 54 | 47.79 | |
| ≤ intermediate | 59 | 52.21 | ||
| N | Mean | SD | ||
| Professional experiences (years) | Clinical | 246 | 8.84 | 5.26 |
| Teaching | 248 | 4.32 | 3.67 | |
| Answers | Value | % | ||
| Number of
articles read
in English within
approximately 3 months
( | 0 | 57 | 23.1 | |
| 1–5 | 143 | 57.9 | ||
| 6–10 | 28 | 11.3 | ||
| 11–20 | 10 | 4.0 | ||
| 21 ≤ | 9 | 3.6 | ||
| Frequency of
perceived language
barrier ( | Never | 1 | .4 | |
| Rarely | 2 | .8 | ||
| Occasionally | 42 | 17.1 | ||
| Often | 74 | 30.2 | ||
| Always | 126 | 51.4 | ||
Use of Online MT and Perceived Usability
| Variables | Answers | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous online
MT use
( | Yes | 183 | 73.8 |
| No | 65 | 26.2 | |
| Frequency of
online MT use
( | Rarely | 49 | 34.3 |
| Occasionally | 62 | 43.4 | |
| Always/almost always | 32 | 22.4 | |
| Perceived usability
( | Not usable at all | 3 | 1.6 |
| Not usable very much | 51 | 28.0 | |
| Neither usable nor unusable | 25 | 13.7 | |
| Usable to some degree | 91 | 50.0 | |
| Very usable | 12 | 6.6 |
Frequency of Online MT Use and Perceived Usability According to Participant Characteristics
| Variables | Numbers of Articles Read in English | Perceived Language Barrier | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-5 (%) | ≥ 6 (%) | χ2 | Less (%) | More (%) | χ2 | ||||||
| Title | Assistant | 59 | 55 (93.2) | 4 (6.8) | 7.713 | .005 | 55 | 6 (10.9) | 49 (89.1) | 2.484 | .115 |
| Research Associate | 186 | 143 (76.9) | 43 (23.1) | 188 | 38 (20.2) | 150 (79.8) | |||||
| Age group | ≤ 30s | 152 | 127 (83.6) | 25 (16.4) | 1.709 | .191 | 149 | 24 (16.1) | 125 (83.9) | 1.295 | .255 |
| ≥ 40s | 95 | 73 (76.8) | 22 (23.1) | 96 | 21 (21.9) | 75 (78.1) | |||||
| Academic degree | ≤ bachelors | 56 | 50 (89.3) | 6 (10.7) | 3.359 | .067 | 58 | 4 (7.5) | 49 (92.5) | 5.097 | .024 |
| ≥ masters | 189 | 148 (78.3) | 41 (21.7) | 190 | 40 (21.1) | 150 (78.9) | |||||
| English level | ≤ intermediate | 59 | 53 (89.9) | 6 (10.1) | 6.026 | .014 | 56 | 8 (14.3) | 48 (85.7) | 4.629 | .031 |
| ≥ intermediate | 53 | 38 (71.7) | 15 (28.3) | 53 | 17 (31.5) | 37 (68.5) | |||||
| Professional experience | Clinical | 243 | -.045 | .485 | 241 | .14 | .029 | ||||
| Teaching | 245 | .186 | .004 | 243 | -.112 | .018 | |||||
Spearman’s correlation coefficients.
Significance level is 1%.
Relationship Between Numbers of Articles Read in English and Perceived Language Barrier, According to Participant Characteristics
| Variables | Frequency of Online MT Use | Perceived Usability | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Unusable (%) | Usable (%) | χ2 | |||||||
| Title | Assistant | 28 | 2.18 | .819 | .471 | .638 | 38 | 17 (44.7) | 21 (55.3) | .053 | .818 |
| Research Associate | 115 | 2.1 | .73 | 143 | 61 (42.6) | 82 (57.3) | |||||
| Age group | ≤ 30s | 94 | 2.2 | .742 | 1.87 | .064 | 113 | 47(41.6) | 66(58.4) | .399 | .528 |
| ≥ 40s | 49 | 1.96 | .735 | 69 | 32(46.4) | 37(53.6) | |||||
| Academic degree | ≤ bachelors | 26 | 2.23 | .815 | .827 | .414 | 37 | 19 (51.4) | 18 (48.6) | 1.219 | .269 |
| ≥ masters | 115 | 2.09 | .732 | 143 | 59 (41.3) | 84 (58.7) | |||||
| English level | ≤ intermediate | 20 | 2.20 | .696 | 1.016 | .314 | 33 | 16 (48.5) | 17 (51.5) | .402 | .526 |
| ≥ intermediate | 39 | 2.00 | .725 | 46 | 19 (41.3) | 27 (58.7) | |||||
| Number of articles | zero | 26 | 1.81 | .749 | .462 | .631 | 33 | 15 (45.5) | 18 (54.5) | .852 | .653 |
| 1-5 | 87 | 1.87 | .728 | 113 | 51 (45.1) | 62 (54.9) | |||||
| ≥ 6 | 27 | 2.00 | .832 | 33 | 12 (36.4) | 21 (63.6) | |||||
| Language barrier | Never-Occasionally | 18 | 2.00 | .716 | 5.195 | .007 | 25 | 13 (52.0) | 12 (48.0) | .879 | .644 |
| Often | 40 | 2.27 | .717 | 55 | 24 (43.6) | 31(56.4) | |||||
| Always | 84 | 1.72 | .752 | 101 | 42 (41.6) | 59 (58.4) | |||||
| Professional experiences | Clinical | 142 | .048 | .574 | 175 | .128 | .093 | ||||
| Teaching | 42 | .052 | .542 | 176 | -.072 | .341 | |||||
ANOVA p-value.
Kruskal-Wallis test p-value.
Spearman’s correlation coefficient p-value.
Number of professional articles read in English within approximately the previous 3 months.
Frequency of language barrier perception when reading nursing articles in English.