| Literature DB >> 35144604 |
Huiling Hu1, Chongkun Wang1, Yue Lan1, Xue Wu2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A high turnover rate has become a critical issue in the field of nursing and how to tackle the problem of nursing turnover has received increased attention worldwide. Hope, career identity, job satisfaction may be useful for reducing turnover. The aim of this study is to explore the relationships among career identity, hope, job satisfaction, and the turnover intention of nurses, and to test the mediating role of job satisfaction on the associations of hope and career identity with turnover intention.Entities:
Keywords: Career identity; Hope; Job satisfaction; Mediating effect; Nurses; Personnel turnover
Year: 2022 PMID: 35144604 PMCID: PMC8830989 DOI: 10.1186/s12912-022-00821-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nurs ISSN: 1472-6955
Fig. 1Hypothesized model of relationship between hope, career identity, job satisfaction and turnover intention
Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample (N = 493)
| Age (years) | ||
| < 25 | 76 | 15.4 |
| 25–44 | 371 | 75.3 |
| > 44 | 46 | 9.3 |
| Gender | ||
| Female | 486 | 98.6 |
| Male | 7 | 1.4 |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | 160 | 32.5 |
| Married | 322 | 65.3 |
| Others | 11 | 2.2 |
| Education level | ||
| Vocational education | 6 | 1.2 |
| Advanced diploma | 174 | 35.3 |
| Bachelor or higher | 313 | 63.5 |
| Years of work | ||
| < 5 | 145 | 29.4 |
| 5–19 | 266 | 54.0 |
| > 19 | 82 | 16.6 |
| Professional title | ||
| Junior | 352 | 71.4 |
| Senior or above | 141 | 28.6 |
| Management position | ||
| None | 465 | 94.3 |
| Officer or above | 28 | 5.7 |
| Work unit | ||
| Surgical | 152 | 30.8 |
| Medical | 173 | 35.1 |
| Women & Child | 37 | 7.5 |
| Others | 131 | 26.6 |
Descriptive statistics for the ADHS, NCIS, OJS, and ET
| Variables | Number of Items | Mean | SD | Cronbach’s alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hopea | 8 | 22.67 | 3.57 | 0.857 |
| Agency thinking | 4 | 10.90 | 2.04 | 0.779 |
| Pathways thinking | 4 | 11.77 | 1.83 | 0.754 |
| Career identityb | 21 | 110.22 | 19.16 | 0.949 |
| Sense of grasp | 3 | 17.23 | 2.81 | 0.884 |
| Sense of consistency | 4 | 21.55 | 4.44 | 0.892 |
| Sense of significance | 3 | 15.39 | 3.27 | 0.739 |
| Sense of self efficacy | 3 | 17.18 | 2.80 | 0.881 |
| Sense of self decision | 3 | 14.59 | 4.02 | 0.851 |
| Sense of organization’s influence | 2 | 8.31 | 2.84 | 0.814 |
| Sense of patients’ influence | 3 | 15.97 | 3.30 | 0.806 |
| Job satisfactiona | 6 | 20.71 | 4.55 | 0.869 |
| General satisfaction | 2 | 6.86 | 1.81 | 0.788 |
| Intrinsic satisfaction | 2 | 6.14 | 1.89 | 0.740 |
| Extrinsic satisfaction | 2 | 7.70 | 1.53 | 0.751 |
| Turnover intentionc | 6 | 15.54 | 3.77 | 0.827 |
| Possibility to resign from present job | 2 | 4.83 | 1.61 | 0.788 |
| Motivation to seek another job | 2 | 4.87 | 1.63 | 0.629 |
| Possibility to gained an external job | 2 | 5.84 | 1.27 | 0.724 |
a5-point scale with a range of 1–5, b7-point scale with a range of 1–7, c4-point scale with a range of 1–4
Correlations between hope, career identity, job satisfaction, and turnover intention (N = 493)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Hope | – | – | – |
| 2 Career identity | 0.494*** | – | – |
| 3 Job satisfaction | 0.421*** | 0.610*** | – |
| 4 Turnover intention | −0.227*** | − 0.342*** | −0.501*** |
***p < 0.001
Regression results
| Independent variable | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 0.425 | 44.616*** | ||||
| Constant | 4.864 | – | 3.823 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Women & Child Unit | 1.578 | 0.092 | 2.496 | 0.013* | ||
| Age | −0.085 | −0.139 | −3.227 | 0.001** | ||
| Career identity | 0.128 | 0.540 | 13.362 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Hope | 0.201 | 0.159 | 3.926 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Model 2 | 0.324 | 17.608*** | ||||
| Constant | 31.157 | – | 12.175 | < 0.001*** | ||
| Married | 0.897 | 0.113 | 2.353 | 0.019* | ||
| Surgical Unit | 0.937 | 0.115 | 2.657 | 0.008** | ||
| Women & Child Unit | 1.281 | 0.090 | 2.211 | 0.028* | ||
| Other Unit | 0.884 | 0.104 | 2.657 | 0.018* | ||
| Gender | −3.456 | −0.109 | −2.353 | 0.005** | ||
| Vocational education | −3.364 | −0.098 | −2.557 | 0.011* | ||
| Job Satisfaction | −0.415 | −0.500 | −10.068 | < 0.001*** |
Model 1: dependent variable: Job satisfaction
Model 2: dependent variable: Turnover intention
B Path coefficient, β Standardized path coefficient, R Coefficient determination, t Path coefficient test statistics (critical ratio), p Significance, F Test for ANOVA
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fig. 2Final model and standardized model paths. ADHSm: Hope; NCISm: career identity; OJSm: job satisfaction; ETm: Turnover; ADHS1: Agency thinking; ADHS2: Pathway thinking; NCIS1: Sense of grasp; NCIS2: Sense of consistency; NCIS3: Sense of significance; NCIS4: Sense of self efficacy; NCIS5: Sense of self decision; NCIS6: Sense of organization’s influence; NCIS7: Sense of patients’ influence; OJS1: General satisfaction; OJS2: Intrinsic satisfaction; OJS3: Extrinsic satisfaction; ET1: possibility to resign from present job; ET2: motivation to seek another job; ET3: possibility to gain an external job
Effects of hope and career identity on turnover intention
| Estimate | B | β | SE | 95%CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Career identity→Turnover intention | − 0.23 | − 0.38 | 0.06 | (− 0.49, − 0.26) |
| Hope→Turnover intention | − 0.08 | − 0.10 | 0.09 | (− 0.23, − 0.03) |
| Career identity→Job satisfaction→Turnover intention | −0.21 | − 0.33 | 0.05 | (− 0.45, − 0.23) |
| Hope→Job satisfaction→Turnover intention | − 0.08 | − 0.09 | 0.04 | (− 0.17, − 0.03) |
| Career identity→Turnover intention | − 0.03 | − 0.05 | 0.07 | (− 0.18, 0.09) |
| Hope→Turnover intention | − 0.01 | − 0.01 | 0.06 | (− 0.12, 0.11) |
A 95% bootstrap confidence interval that does not include zero means an effect is significant