Journal of Nursing Education

Major Article 

Developing and Testing the Nurse Educator Scale: A Robust Measure of Students’ Intentions to Pursue an Educator Role

Haifa Abou Samra, PhD, RN-NIC; Jacqueline M. McGrath, PhD, RN, FNAP, FAAN; Tracy Estes, PhD, RN, FNP-BC

Abstract

No instrument exists that measures student perceptions of the faculty role. Such a measure is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of interventions aimed at attracting students to the faculty career path. We developed the Nurse Educator Scale (NES). The initial scale items were generated using the social cognitive career theory (SCCT) constructs and were reviewed by an expert panel to ensure content validity. Exploratory factor analysis was used. The optimized 25-item, 7-point Likert scale has a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.85, with a total variance of 42%. The underlying factor structure supported three defining characteristics congruent with SCCT: outcome expectations (alpha = 0.79), relevant knowledge (alpha = 0.67), and social influence (alpha = 0.80). A stand-alone, item-measuring goal setting was also supported. The NES provides a valid and reliable measure of students’ intentions and motivations to pursue a future career as a nurse educator or scientist. [J Nurs Educ. 2013;52(6):323–329.]

Dr. Abou Samra is Assistant Professor, South Dakota State University, College of Nursing, Brookings, South Dakota; Dr. McGrath is Professor, School of Nursing, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut; and Dr. Estes is Assistant Professor and Program Director, Graduate Nursing, South University College of Nursing and Public Health, Glen Allen, Virginia.

This research was funded by the Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International (STTI), with support from The Elsevier Foundation for the Nurse Faculty Mentored Leadership Development Program. The authors thank the faculty and students at South Dakota State University College of Nursing for their contributions and the management team for supporting the study. The authors also thank the expert faculty who assisted in evaluating the Nurse Educator Scale.

The authors have disclosed no potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

Address correspondence to Haifa Abou Samra, PhD, RN-NIC, Assistant Professor, South Dakota State University, College of Nursing, Box 2275, SNF 209, Brookings, SD 57007; e-mail: haifa.samra@sdstate.edu.

Received: October 03, 2012
Accepted: December 19, 2012
Posted Online: April 30, 2013

Abstract

No instrument exists that measures student perceptions of the faculty role. Such a measure is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of interventions aimed at attracting students to the faculty career path. We developed the Nurse Educator Scale (NES). The initial scale items were generated using the social cognitive career theory (SCCT) constructs and were reviewed by an expert panel to ensure content validity. Exploratory factor analysis was used. The optimized 25-item, 7-point Likert scale has a Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient of 0.85, with a total variance of 42%. The underlying factor structure supported three defining characteristics congruent with SCCT: outcome expectations (alpha = 0.79), relevant knowledge (alpha = 0.67), and social influence (alpha = 0.80). A stand-alone, item-measuring goal setting was also supported. The NES provides a valid and reliable measure of students’ intentions and motivations to pursue a future career as a nurse educator or scientist. [J Nurs Educ. 2013;52(6):323–329.]

Dr. Abou Samra is Assistant Professor, South Dakota State University, College of Nursing, Brookings, South Dakota; Dr. McGrath is Professor, School of Nursing, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut; and Dr. Estes is Assistant Professor and Program Director, Graduate Nursing, South University College of Nursing and Public Health, Glen Allen, Virginia.

This research was funded by the Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International (STTI), with support from The Elsevier Foundation for the Nurse Faculty Mentored Leadership Development Program. The authors thank the faculty and students at South Dakota State University College of Nursing for their contributions and the management team for supporting the study. The authors also thank the expert faculty who assisted in evaluating the Nurse Educator Scale.

The authors have disclosed no potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

Address correspondence to Haifa Abou Samra, PhD, RN-NIC, Assistant Professor, South Dakota State University, College of Nursing, Box 2275, SNF 209, Brookings, SD 57007; e-mail: haifa.samra@sdstate.edu.

Received: October 03, 2012
Accepted: December 19, 2012
Posted Online: April 30, 2013

The nursing faculty shortage has been evident for several years and remains of great concern. Over the past decade or so, there have been several media campaigns, fundraising efforts, and scholarship and fellowship programs to enhance recruitment and retention to improve the image of nursing. Such efforts include the 2010 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Charting Nursing’s Future and the focus on expanding America’s capacity to educate nurses; the 2009 Nurse Education, Expansion and Development Act; capitation grants; the 2005 President’s High Growth Job Training Initiative; the 2002 $50 million, 5-year Johnson & Johnson Campaign for Nursing’s Future; and the 2001 Nurses for a Healthier Tomorrow coordinated by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and launched by a coalition of 43 nursing health care organizations (Allan & Aldebron, 2008). The establishment of state and federal nursing workforce centers to perform workforce analyses was among those efforts. Consortiums for nursing education among universities and among university and health care organizations to increase teaching capacity were also established. Other novel solutions emerged, which included the use of technology, online and hybrid programs, non-nurse educators, and new and accelerated programs (Allan & Aldebron, 2008; AACN, 2012).

Although large-scope strategies are necessary (Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2010) to provide long-term solutions, small-scale interventions are less costly and can be as effective (Seldomridge, 2004). As worldwide efforts continue to be directed at expanding the nursing faculty pool, there remains an urgent need to understand what motivates a nursing student to pursue the educator career path (Allan & Aldebron, 2008; IOM, 2010; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, 2008).

Existing faculty have access to a valuable resource—their students—and if those students are identified and appropriately mentored, they can have a significant impact on the potential pool of future faculty. Experiential education enables students to make connections to the real world, which is believed to be effective in motivating students to make career choices and learn about career roles (Fougner & Horntvedt, 2011; Gass, 2003). Through mentoring, we believe that first-hand exposure to the opportunities the faculty role has to offer has the potential to be an effective tool in facilitating the next generation of nurses pursuing the faculty role as a career option.

Several options exist for a student who desires to practice at an advanced level in nursing. These include the four advanced practice specializations (nurse practitioner, nurse midwife, clinical nurse specialist, and nurse anesthetist), the clinical nurse lead, and the nurse educator option (American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 2011). Making the choice to pursue one specialty over another is influenced by several factors, including personal interest, cost, knowledge of what each practice area entails, circle of influence, market demand, demographics, and availability of educational programs in close proximity to the student. Each advanced practice specialty requires a different set of skills and different educational preparation. To make an informed decision, students need to know their interests, be aware of their strengths, and understand both the advantages and disadvantages of their choices. Students see only a small aspect of the nurse faculty role from their view as a student. Understanding what motivates a student to choose the nurse faculty role is important. Uncovering the perceptions of students about the nurse faculty role can help in developing appropriate experiences and educational activities to aid students in seeing the whole role and how it might fit into their long-term career trajectory.

This study is part of a project designed to develop an experiential model of learning that is theory driven and aimed at advancing knowledge in the area of the factors that predict nurse educator career choices and ultimately influence recruitment. However, without a valid and reliable measure, the efficacy of such a model cannot be documented. The purpose of this study is to develop and test the psychometric properties of the Nurse Educator Scale (NES), which is a measure of the perceptions of the nurse faculty role. An extensive literature search failed to locate another such measure. It is our belief that gathering data with this instrument will provide a basis for the development of tailored interventions designed to promote the role of the nurse educator. In the long term, this information could assist in predicting the future faculty workforce and provide insight into how to best create a sustainable pipeline for future nurse faculty.

Theoretical Framework

Derived from Bandura’s (1998) self-efficacy theory, the social cognitive career theory (SCCT) by Brown and Lent (1996) suggests three key constructs that drive career development: self-efficacy, outcome expectation, and goal setting. Furthermore, learning is directly related to observation, and observation may occur through media outlets or by individuals in the person’s immediate context. Individuals enact the observed behavior because they anticipate results (expectations) similar to those observed when others performed the behavior. Expectations may include one’s motivation for success, confidence in one’s ability to perform, frustration with repeated failures, and consequences, all of which determine whether the behavior will be performed by the observer. Expectations are divided into two categories: self-efficacy and outcome expectations.

Self-efficacy is confidence in one’s ability to perform the behavior leading to the expected outcome. It determines whether an individual has the intention to engage in a certain activity or pursue a certain career path (Bandura, 1998) (Figure 1). Self-efficacy theory explains the relationship among attitudes (belief whether the behavior is positive or negative; i.e., hard, easy, pleasant, painful, takes time), expectations, or beliefs about the outcome and about self-ability (i.e., whether performing the behavior will lead to a positive outcome and whether the observer has the confidence to perform the behavior), intentions (goal setting), and behavior (performance). The four sources of self-efficacy are:

  • Vicarious learning. Through social modeling, the learner observes the behavior and receives instructions and guidance from the role model or mentor on how to complete the behavior.
  • Mastery experiences. The nurse or mentor (i.e., the person providing the behavior or the intervention) facilitates the success of the observer by assisting him or her to set and achieve realistic goals and complete the tasks. With the achievement of simple tasks, the mentor or the educator helps the observer to move toward a more complex task. (A step-by-step process is used to learn the desired behavior).
  • Verbal persuasion. The mentor provides encouragement to the learner to engage and complete the tasks. Persuasion through intended and unintended media messages also plays an important role in self-efficacy.
  • Physical and emotional states. Improving the well-being of the individual facilitates learning. For example, reducing the stress level of the learner has a positive impact on learning.
Conceptual framework for the social cognitive theory.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework for the social cognitive theory.

Outcome expectations are individual perceptions that performing a behavior will indeed lead to the outcome. Contextual factors, such as availability of information, social influences by the media, and family members, spouse, peers, and teachers, play an important role in shaping one’s beliefs and perceptions, depending on how the factors are perceived by the learner. Individual characteristics, such as age and sex, mediate the influence of individual beliefs and perceptions on outcome expectations. Individuals who perceive environmental barriers to advancing in a specific career path of interest are unlikely to challenge those barriers and pursue their interests if they have low self-efficacy. Therefore, the degree of self-efficacy is the most important predictor of behavior. The NES will measure the concepts of the SCCT in relation to students’ knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs regarding the nurse educator role.

A paucity of data exists on why nurses choose the nurse educator role. Few studies explored job satisfaction among nurse educators and found that organizational characteristics, empowerment, productivity, and vitality are the main factors leading to high job satisfaction among nurse educators (Baker, Fizpatrick, & Griffin, 2011; Davies, Spence Laschinger, & Andrusyszn, 2006). Nurse educators were also found to have higher job satisfaction than staff nurses (Baker et al., 2011; Davies et al., 2006). It is unclear whether those same perceived benefits are what motivate individuals to pursue the nurse educator career path.

For the current study, we hypothesized that if we could identify those students who have an interest in the nurse educator career path, we could then structure their learning environment in a way that (a) influences their perceived benefit of the educator role; (b) increases their self-efficacy through various learning, mastery experiences, and persuasion; (c) removes perceived barriers and allows them to move forward with their interests; and (d) increases the likelihood of success through goal setting and the realization of their own outcome expectations. As such, the proposed study and the generation of the final 25 items of the NES were guided by the SCCT.

Design and Sampling

This research was a longitudinal, nonexperimental design conducted over an 18-month period from April 2010 to October 2011. Guided by standard instrument development practices (DeVellis, 2003), an initial item pool was generated using the SCCT and was reviewed by an expert panel to ensure content validity (Table 1). The pool of items was administered to a development sample and was subsequently evaluated using principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysis. The scale length and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient were balanced to minimize item burden and optimize reliability.

Characteristics of the Study’s Expert Judges and Experiential Student Judges

Table 1: Characteristics of the Study’s Expert Judges and Experiential Student Judges

During development, a convenience sample of 29 undergraduate nursing students drawn from a cohort of 36 students enrolled in an accelerated nursing program of one midwestern university served as experiential judges, together with 11 nurse–faculty recruited from four different universities who served as expert judges. Table 1 displays the judges’ demographic information. Snowball sampling was used to recruit faculty judges, five of whom had previous experience with instrument development. Both groups provided content validity data for development of the initial items. After this step was completed, the validated item pool was administered to a development sample of 197 undergraduate students drawn from among students enrolled in a five-semester, traditional undergraduate nursing program. Using the rule of a minimum of five participants per item (e.g., 35 items × five participants), a target sample of 175 students was considered to be adequate for preliminary psychometric analysis (McDowell, 2006; Tinsely & Tinsley, 1987). Participation was completely voluntary. Informed consent was obtained after students agreed to participate. All students enrolled in the undergraduate nursing program were eligible to participate in the study. There were no exclusion criteria. We did not limit recruitment to one level of students because there is no evidence to support the idea that students make decisions about future career choices at any particular time point in their undergraduate education. We believe that students constantly examine different career options during their various clinical experiences, and although they are often in contact with nurse faculty, they do not always consider that role as a career choice. We believe our instrument will provide information about students’ perceptions and their decision-making process.

Item Generation and Content Validity

Guided by the SCCT, the original 35-item scale was developed and divided into three conceptual subscales: relevant knowledge of the nurse educator role attributes (11 items), outcome expectations (14 items), and social influences (9 items). In addition to the three subscales, the NES included one stand-alone global item that was designed to measure participant intent to act through goal setting. The subscales represent the core constructs of which the instrument is measuring relevant to the overall domain. Convergent and discriminant validity were supported by expert judges’ assessment of the scale item assignment to the theoretically supported subscale (Lynn, 1986; Rubio, Berg-Weger, Tebb, Lee, & Rauch, 2003; Schilling et al., 2007). The initial scale had a 5-point Likert scale response format for measurement. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with each statement as 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

Each judge completed an informed consent form, a demographic questionnaire, and a content validity evaluation tool. Judges were instructed to rate each item for its clarity, relevance, and fit to the assigned subscale on a 4-point Likert content validity scale (i.e., 1 = unclear, 2 = unable to assess clarity without revision of the item, 3 = clear but needs minor alteration, 4 = clear). Lynn’s (1986) and Schilling’s et al. (2007) works were used as a guide for designing the content validity rating tool. Nurse faculty experts were asked to write any additional comments and suggestions and to explain their ratings for each item if they item rated the item as 1, 2, or 3. Table 2 shows sample questions for content validity evaluation.

Sample Questions of the Content Validity Evaluation Scale

Table 2: Sample Questions of the Content Validity Evaluation Scale

Item content validity indices were calculated for all 35 items. Item content validity indices for 27 items ranged between 0.9 and 1 for all three criteria: clarity, relevance, and fit. Seven items had low item content validity indices (0.74 to 0.78). Five of the eight items were reverse rated and of the Attitude and Outcome Expectation subscale. Originally, reverse items were included to ensure that respondents provided constant answers and that they gave the survey questions their full attention. Following Polit’s and Beck’s (2004) recommendations to use 0.78 as a cut-off score for retaining items, the reverse items were discarded after a consensus was reached by the project team. Two remaining items were modified by changing “faculty” to “educator” and were retained. The final scale included 30 items: 13 items in the Relevant Knowledge sub-scale, nine items in Attitude and Outcome Expectations subscale, seven items in the Influence subscale, and one global, stand-alone item for Goal Setting. The scale was altered from a 5-point to a 6-point Likert scale response format: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = slightly agree, 5 = agree, and 6 = strongly agree. The change was made to capture additional variability in each participant’s response.

Procedure for Validation of the Item Pool

Student recruitment occurred at the principal investigator’s (H.A.S.) college of nursing. The principal investigator visited a core nursing course at the end of one class period. At that time, study protocols were explained to the students, questions were answered, and informed consent was obtained from those willing to participate. The baseline survey was then completed. It was conveyed and emphasized to students that their participation in the study and their responses would not affect their class grades. Permission to visit each class was obtained from the teaching faculty prior to the visit date. Surveys had no personal identifiers and were stored in locked cabinets at the college of nursing. The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board and by the Research Committee at the college of nursing.

Item Characteristics and Instrument Reliability

A development sample of 197 (90%; 165 women, 32 men; 80 students were enrolled in semester III, 59 in semester IV, and 58 in semester V) undergraduate nursing students participated in this arm of the instrument development. Students’ mean age was 23 years (SD = 1). Almost all of the students were Caucasian, which is representative of the composition of the undergraduate student population at the college of nursing. The average grade point average was 3.3, and 37% of the participants had been involved in teaching activities through community service or previous high school volunteer work. Thirty questionnaires were discarded due to incomplete data, such as providing no response to several items or providing multiple responses to the same item for more than one item. SPSS® version 17.0 software was used to examine the psychometric properties of the instrument. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore the dimensionality of the items and reduce them into a smaller set of uncorrelated variables. Items loading < 0.30 were eliminated. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to explore and reduce the theoretical structure of the variables. With EFA, initially a more conservative varimax (uncorrelated) rotation was used, but the underlying theory of the NES was more congruent with an oblimin (correlated) rotation for factors. After PCA and EFA were conducted, the instrument length and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient were analyzed.

Psychometric Testing Results. Raw scores for 167 participants were examined (Figure 2). The mean score of the scale was 126 (SD = 14). The distribution of scores was positively skewed, indicating a more positive perception of the educator role. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient was 0.77, and the measure of sampling adequacy coefficient was > 0.6, both suggesting sampling adequacy (Field, 2009). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 1811 ± 435 for ?2 ± df, and p was < 0.0001), suggesting the data were appropriate for PCA and EFA. Single-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 7-factor solutions were explored to reduce the data into a smaller set of uncorrelated variables with PCA with oblique rotation. Of the 30 items, eight had eigenvalues > 1 and explained 61.8% of the total variance. However, the scree plot demonstrated a distinct elbow at three components (Figure 3), suggesting a 3-factor solution provided the best fit for the data. Guided by the scree plot and the theoretical underpinnings of the NES, the PCA using an oblimin rotation with a 3-factor solution was used for the remainder of the analyses.

Raw scores distribution of the 35-item Nurse Educator Scale.

Figure 2. Raw scores distribution of the 35-item Nurse Educator Scale.

Scree plot of single, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 7-factor solutions of the Nurse Educator Scale.

Figure 3. Scree plot of single, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 7-factor solutions of the Nurse Educator Scale.

Reliability of the 3-factor scale was examined using Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. Of the original 30 items, six did not load at the 0.3 level, leaving 24 items loading on the three factors with the single, global stand-alone item (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001) (Table 3). Item reduction resulted in a total variance of 42%, with a 5% increase from that of a 30-item scale. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was 0.85 for the total scale, 0.8 for Influence, 0.79 for Attitudes and Outcome Expectations, and 0.67 for Relevant Knowledge. On the basis of these initial findings, the scale was expanded from a 6-point to a 7-point Likert scale response format: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = neutral, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, and 7 = strongly agree. A neutral point was added, and the item responses were modified to allow for a more normal distribution and to capture more variability in each participant’s response. Table 4 shows NES sample questions.

Item Reduction Reliability of the 30-Item Scale

Table 3: Item Reduction Reliability of the 30-Item Scale

The Nurse Educator Scale Sample Items

Table 4: The Nurse Educator Scale Sample Items

Further Psychometric Testing. The newly modified 25-item, 7-point Likert scale, with questions randomly ordered, was administered to a new development sample of 76 (66 women, 7 men, and 3 not stated) undergraduate senior nursing students. A step-by-step item reduction was conducted using principle axis factoring with an oblimin rotation. All 25 items (24 loading items and one stand-alone) were retained, and all the three conceptual subscales were again supported, with one minor revision. In the previous psychometric analysis, item 1—The primary responsibility of the nurse educator role is the education of the students—loaded on factor 3 (Knowledge), and item 10—The nursing faculty shortage makes a faculty job stressful—loaded on factor 1 (Outcome Expectations). However, in the current psychometric analysis, both items cross-loaded on factors 1 and 3. Using the pattern matrix as a guide, item 1 and item 10 were retained on factor 3 (Knowledge). Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for the total scale was 0.87 for the refined scale with this second sample of senior nursing students.

Discussion

After content validity and testing with two different developmental samples, the NES demonstrated good psychometric properties and has acceptable Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient, inter-item correlations, and item-total correlations. In the second sample, it was noted that further reduction of the items would not result in a higher Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient.

This is the first scale to explore factors that influence students’ perception of the nurse educator role, and it predicts whether students will pursue the nurse educator career path. The results of the factor analysis support key constructs of the SCCT: self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and goal setting. Perceptions and beliefs are related to outcome expectations and self-efficacy, which are key constructs of the area of interest development, a component of the SCCT. Items measuring students’ beliefs and perceptions about the nurse educator role and items measuring perceived barriers and supports, as well as anticipated benefits of pursuing the nurse educator career path, such as monetary compensation, mentoring students, respect, and autonomy, fell under the Outcome Expectations subscale. All informational items fell under the Knowledge subscale.

Factual information about the nurse educator role is also tied to whether students will aspire to be a nurse educator by fostering positive outcome expectations and increasing self-efficacy beliefs. Knowledge items can be influenced by vicarious learning and mastery experiences. External factors, such as familial and societal influences, also impact a student’s extended career interests and influence their beliefs of what would happen if they were to pursue the nurse educator career path. Items asking about the extent to which family, friends, instructors, and media influence students’ decisions to pursue the nurse educator career path fell under the Social Influence subscale. Support from family and friends increases the perceived benefit and reduces the perceived barriers to pursuing the nurse educator career path.

As noted earlier, we are not aware of any scales that allow for the assessment of student’s perceptions and attitudes toward the nurse educator role. Therefore, a comparison of results is not possible at this time. However, the SCCT is a dynamic nonlinear approach that has been shown to have great relevance to career counseling in diverse populations and in explaining how people develop career interests and make career choices (Rogers, Creed, & Searle, 2009; Rowan-Kenyon, Perna, & Swan, 2011; Wachter Morris, Shoffner, & Newsome, 2009). Further testing with larger samples is needed to increase reliability and validity of the NES. Our findings are robust, and we believe the scale has potential use in nursing education and nursing research.

Practice Implications

The NES scale provides a basis for identifying students who might benefit from more intense mentoring and coaching toward the nurse educator role as an aspect of their nursing career trajectory. Such experiences will create opportunities for the students to learn about the role and observe how others accomplish tasks and succeed in the role. The NES is potentially useful as a screening tool to identify those students who could be targeted for more intense experiences and recruitment into the nurse educator track. Routine use of the NES with undergraduate nursing students could provide faculty with a better understanding about how to effectively influence and recruit students to pursue the nurse educator role as a future career path. In the future, the NES could provide guidance to nurse educators and nursing schools on how to tailor and evaluate interventions aimed at attracting and recruiting students into the nurse educator track based on their NES scores.

Research Implications

The NES provides researchers with an objective method to measure critical aspects of student perceptions of the nurse educator role and how those perceptions influence decision making about whether to pursue the nurse educator career path. A better understanding of student perceptions can be achieved by more routine use of the NES in future nursing education research. Informing researchers about which perceptions are more positive is useful in building stronger mentoring relationships between faculty and students and in advancing student interests.

Other benefits of the NES can be realized through continued use by other researchers who wish to develop and test questions and hypotheses regarding faculty recruitment. The NES could be adapted and used in attitude intervention studies in other populations, including graduate students and practicing nurses. However, stability and reliability of the scale needs to evaluated in those groups, as well as in other populations, and in more culturally diverse groups. The instrument will need to be further validated psychometrically by using confirmatory factor analysis in future studies.

Conclusion

The NES has good beginning psychometric properties and offers an objective measure of predicting students’ intentions and motivators to pursue a future career in nursing education.

References

  • Allan, J.D. & Aldebron, J. (2008). A systematic assessment of strategies to address the nursing faculty shortage, U.S. Nursing Outlook, 56, 286–297 doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2008.09.006 [CrossRef] .
  • American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2012). Nursing shortage. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/nursing-shortage
  • American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. (2011). The new APRN regulatory model: Defining the future of advanced practice nursing. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.org/WD/Certifications/Content/newAPRNregulatorymodel.pcms?menu=certification
  • Baker, S.L., Fizpatrick, J.J. & Griffin, M.Q. (2011). Empowerment and job satisfaction in associate degree nurse educatorsNursing Education Perspectives, 32, 234–239 doi:10.5480/1536-5026-32.4.234 [CrossRef] .
  • Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychology & Health, 13, 623–649 doi:10.1080/08870449808407422 [CrossRef] .
  • Brown, S.D. & Lent, R.W. (1996). A social cognitive framework for career choice counseling. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 354–366 doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1996.tb00451.x [CrossRef] .
  • Davies, M.A., Spence Laschinger, H.K. & Andrusyszn, M.A. (2006). Clinical educators’ empowerment, job tension, and job satisfaction: A test of Kanter’s theory. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 22, 78–86 doi:10.1097/00124645-200603000-00007 [CrossRef] .
  • DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sage.
  • Fougner, M. & Horntvedt, T. (2011). Students’ reflections on shadowing interprofessional teamwork: A Norwegian case study. Journal of Inter-professional Care, 25, 33–38.
  • Gass, M. (2003). Kurt Hahn address 2002 AEE International Conference. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 363–371 doi:10.1177/105382590302500323 [CrossRef] .
  • Institute of Medicine. (2010). The future of nursing: Leading change, advancing health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
  • Lynn, M.R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–385 doi:10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017 [CrossRef] .
  • McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Polit, D.F. & Beck, C.T. (2004). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29, 489–497 doi:10.1002/nur.20147 [CrossRef] .
  • Rogers, M.E., Creed, P.A. & Searle, J. (2009). The development and initial validation of social cognitive career theory instruments to measure choice of medical speciality and practice location. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 324–337. doi:10.1177/1069072708330676 [CrossRef]
  • Rowan-Kenyon, H., Perna, L.W. & Swan, A.K. (2011). Structuring opportunity: The role of school context in shaping high school students’ occupational aspirations. The Career Development Quarterly, 59, 330–334 doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2011.tb00073.x [CrossRef] .
  • Rubio, D.M., Berg-Weger, M., Tebb, S.S., Lee, S. & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifying content validity: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. National Association of Social Workers, 27, 94–104.
  • Schilling, L.S., Dixon, J.K., Knafl, K.A., Grey, M., Ives, B. & Lynn, M.R. (2007). Determining content validity of a self-report instrument for adolescents using a heterogenous expert panel. Nursing Research, 56, 361–366 doi:10.1097/01.NNR.0000289505.30037.91 [CrossRef] .
  • Seldomridge, L.A. (2004). Attracting students to the professorate: A faculty shadowing experience. Nurse Educator, 29, 256–259 doi:10.1097/00006223-200411000-00012 [CrossRef] .
  • Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Tinsely, H.E.A. & Tinsley, D.J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 414–424 doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.414 [CrossRef] .
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration. (2008). The registered nurse population: Findings from the 2008 National Sample Survey of Registered Nurses. Retrieved from http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/
  • Wachter Morris, C.A., Shoffner, M.F. & Newsome, D.W. (2009). Career counseling for women preparing to leave abusive relationships: A social cognitive career theory approach. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 44–53 doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2009.tb00172.x [CrossRef] .

Characteristics of the Study’s Expert Judges and Experiential Student Judges

Expert Judges

Years at Current Institution Years as Educator Highest Degree Earned ( n ) Tenure Track (Yes/No) Job Satisfaction (Scale: 1 to 5) a Brief View of Judges’ Role as Educator

12 ± 1.0 15 ± 1.0 Doctorate (5), master’s (6) 3/8 Average point satisfaction is 3 Motivate and encourage, provide feedback, role model, facilitate, lead, and provide resources

Experiential Student Judges

Age (yrs) Sex Marital Status Work Experience Leadership Training Previous Work in Teaching

26 ± 5 20 (69%) women, 9 (31%) men 18 (62%) married, 11 (38%) single 19 (66%) certified nurse assistant 15 (52%) 16 (55%)

Sample Questions of the Content Validity Evaluation Scale

On a scale of 1 to 4, please rate each question for its relevance to the goals and activities of the nursing faculty role: 1 = not relevant , 2 = unable to assess relevance without revision of the item , 3 = relevant but needs minor alteration , 4 = relevant.
The primary responsibility of the nurse educator role is the education of the students.
Suggested revisions:
On a scale of 1 to 4, please rate each question for its clarity: 1 = unclear , 2 = unable to assess clarity without revision of the item , 3 = clear but needs minor alteration , 4 = clear.
The primary responsibility of the nurse educator role is the education of the students.
Suggested revisions:
On a scale of 1 to 4, please rate each question for its degree of fit in the category to which it belongs: 1 = poor fit , 2 = unable to assess fit without revision of the item , 3 = good fit but needs minor alteration , 4 = fits.
The primary responsibility of the nurse educator role is the education of the students.
Suggested revisions:

Item Reduction Reliability of the 30-Item Scale

Item Number of Items
Original Scale Phase I After Content Validity Indices Phase II After Exploratory Factor Analysis #1 Final After Exploratory Factor Analysis #2
Subscale I: Relevant knowledge and role attributes 11 13 8 9
Subscale II: Attitudes and outcome expectations 14 9 11 11
Subscale III: Social influence 9 7 5 5
Global stand-alone item 1 1 1 1
Total scale 35 30 25 25
Likert-scale format 5-point 6-point 7-point 7-point

The Nurse Educator Scale Sample Items

Relevant knowledge and role attributes
The primary responsibility of the nurse educator role is the education of the students.
Assuming the nurse educator role requires a graduate degree in nursing education.
Attitudes and outcome expectations subscale
The nurse educator role is challenging.
Working with students is a pleasant experience for the nurse educator.
Pursuing a graduate degree to become a nurse educator is the right investment.
Social influence
Having a faculty member at the college of nursing as a role model has a great impact on my future career decisions.
Guidance from practicing nurse educators is the most influential factor on my future career decisions.
I will most likely pursue a nurse educator job in the future.

10.3928/01484834-20130430-03

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents