• KSAN
  • Contact us
  • E-Submission
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Articles

Original Article

A Prediction Model on the Male Nurses' Turnover Intention

Su Ol Kim, Ph.D., RN1, Younhee Kang, Ph.D., ANP2
Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 2016;28(5):585-594.
Published online: October 31, 2016

1Department of Nursing Science, Graduate School, Ewha Womans University, Seoul

2Professor, College of Nursing, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Kang, Younhee College of Nursing, Ewha Womans University, 52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760, Korea. Tel: +82-2-3277-4483, Fax: +82-2-3277-2850, E-mail: yxk12@ewha.ac.kr
• Received: July 10, 2016   • Accepted: October 24, 2016

Copyright © 2016 Korean Society of Adult Nursing

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 22 Views
  • 0 Download
  • 9 Crossref
prev next
  • Purpose
    The purpose of this study was to develop and test a predictive model on the male nurses’ turnover intention.
  • Methods
    This study utilized the model-testing design based on the Price's causal model of turnover. This study collected data from 306 male nurses on a national scale with structured questionnaires measuring job opportunity, kinship responsibility, positive emotion, work autonomy, role conflict, work satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. The data were analyzed using SPSS/WIN 22.0 program and AMOS 20.0 program.
  • Results
    As the outcomes satisfied the recommended level, the hypothetical model appeared to fit the data. Twenty-seven of the 38 hypotheses selected for the hypothetical model were statistically significant. 54.2% of turnover intention was explained by job opportunity, kinship responsibility, positive emotion, work autonomy, role conflict, work satisfaction and organizational commitment.
  • Conclusion
    The hypothetical model of this study was confirmed to be adequate in explaining and predicting male nurses’ turnover intention. Findings from this study can be used to design appropriate strategies to decrease the male nurse's turnover intention.
Figure 1.
Conceptual framework.
kjan-28-585f1.jpg
Figure 2.
Path diagram of the hypothetical model including control variable.
kjan-28-585f2.jpg
Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (N=306)
Variables M±SD Skewness Kurtosis Range
Job opportunity 8.70±2.38 1.49 -0.73 3~15
Kinship responsibility 5.29±1.65 1.19 -1.50 2~10
Positive emotion 16.31±3.11 -2.34 2.32 5~25
Work autonomy 11.45±2.98 -0.80 -1.02 4~20
Role conflict 10.87±2.73 2.26 -0.19 4~20
Work satisfaction 12.98±2.80 -1.83 1.25 4~20
Organizational commitment 22.93±4.53 -0.99 1.16 7~35
Turnover intention 12.51±3.43 0.60 -1.62 4~20
Table 2.
Fit Index of the Hypothetical Model
Model x2 (p) DF Normed x2 GFI AGFI CFI NFI IFI SRMR RMSEA
Acceptance criteria (p>.05)   ≤3 .90~1 .90~1 .90~1 .90~1 .90~1 ≤.05 ≤.08
Hypothetic Model 0 0 0 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .33
Modified Model 8.78 (.12) 5 1.76 .99 .95 .99 .99 .99 .02 .05

GFI=goodness of fit index; AGFI=adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI=comparative fit index; NFI=normed fit index; IFI=incremental fit index; SRMR=standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation.

Table 3.
Direct Effect, Indirect Effect, and Total Effect in Hypothetical Model
Endogenous variables Exogenous variables SE CR p SMC Direct effect p Indirect effect p Total effect p
Work satisfaction       .613   <.001     -.11 <.001
   Job opportunity -.13 -3.66 <.001 -.11 <.001 .73 <.001
   Positive emotion .65 17.17 <.001 .73 <.001 .18 <.001
   Work autonomy .19 5.25 <.001 .18 .005 -.10 .005
   Role conflict -.10 -2.85 .005 -.10      
Organizational commitment       .643            
   Job opportunity -.17 -5.07 <.001 -.14 <.001 -.07 <.001 -.21 <.001
   Kinship responsibility .08 2.50 .013 .06 .013     .06 .013
   Positive emotion           .46 <.001 .46 <.001
   Work autonomy .07 2.06 .041 .06 .041 .11 <.001 .18 <.001
   Role conflict -.07 -2.09 .038 -.07 .038 -.06 .005 -.14 .001
   Work satisfaction .69 17.63 <.001 .64 <.001     .64 <.001
Turnover intention       .542          
   Job opportunity .12 2.40 .003 .13 .003 .15 <.001 .29 <.001
   Kinship responsibility           -.03 .022 -.03 .022
   Positive emotion           -.52 <.001 -.52 <.001
   Work autonomy           -.16 <.001 -.16 <.001
Role conflict .08 1.99 .046 .10 .046 .11 .001 .21 <.001
   Work satisfaction -.33 -5.20 <.001 -.39 <.001 -.327 .001 -.72 <.001
   Organizational commitment -.38 -6.04 <.001 -.51 <.001     -.51 <.001

Value from Bootstrapping method.

SE=Standard Estimate; CR=Critical ratio; SMC=Squared multiple correlation.

  • 1.Al-hussami M, Darawad M, Saleh A, Hayajneh F. Predicting nurses'turnover intentions by demographic characteristics, perception of health, quality of work, and work attitudes. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 2013;20:79-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijn.12124.
  • 2.Cimotti JP, Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Wu ES. Nursing staffing, burnout, and health care-associated infection. American Journal of Infection Control. 2012;40:486-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.02.029.
  • 3.Spetz J, Harless DW, Herrera CN, Mark BA. Using minimum nurse staffing regulations to measure the relationship between nursing and hospital quality of care. Medical Care Research and Review. 2013;70(4):380-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077558713475715.
  • 4.Sawatzky JA, Enns CL. Exploring the key predictors of retention in emergency nurses. Journal of Nursing Management. 2012;20(5):696-707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01355.x.
  • 5.Kim SH. Nurse state exam pass ‘man's one thousand people'. The Korean Nurses Association News 2013 March 5;Sect. 01..
  • 6.Kim MY. An Exploratory Study of Masculinity in Nursing. Journal of Korean Clinical nursing research. 2009;15(2):37-46.
  • 7.Son HM, Koh MH, Kim CM, Moon JH, Yi MS. The male nurses' experiences of adaptation in clinical setting. Journal of Korean academy of nursing. 2003;33(1):17-25.
  • 8.Chen SH, Yu HY, Hsu HY, Lin FC, Lou JH. Organisational support, organisational identification and organisational citizenship behaviour among male nurses. Journal of Nursing Management. 2013;21:1072-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2012.01449.x.
  • 9.Almalki MJ, FitzGerald G, Clark M. The relationship between quality of work life and turnover intention of primary health care nurses in Saudi Arabia. Human Resources for Health. 2012;12(1):314-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-314.
  • 10.Rowlinson L. Lived experience of being a nurse from a male and female perspective. British Journal of Nursing. 2013;22(4):218-22.
  • 11.McMillian J, Morgan SA, Ament P. Acceptance of male registered nurses by female registered nurses. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2006;38(1):100-6.
  • 12.Lee KJ, Kim MY. The relationship of gender role conflict and job satisfaction upon organizational commitment in male nurses. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing. 2014;26(1):46-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2014.26.1.46.
  • 13.Ahn MK, Lee MH, Kim HK, Jeong SH. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention among male nurses. Journal of Korean academy of nursing administration. 2015;21(2):203-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2015.21.2.203.
  • 14.Price JL. Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of Manpower. 2001;22(7):600-24.
  • 15.Price JL, Mueller CW. A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal. 1981;34:543-65.
  • 16.Kim SW, Price JL, Mueller CW, Watson TW. The determinants of career intent among physicians at a U.S. air force hospital. Human Relations. 1996;49(7):947-76.
  • 17.Lee THAn empirical study on the determinants of turnover intention of geriatric care helpers: focusing on the mediating effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. [dissertation]. Seoul: Hansung University; 2013. p. 1-206.
  • 18.Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegram A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1988;54:1063-70.
  • 19.Breaugh JA. The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations. 1985;38(6):551-70.
  • 20.Rizzo JR, House RJ, Lirtzman SI. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1970;15(2):150-63.
  • 21.Brayfield AH, Rothe H. An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1951;35(5):1173-82.
  • 22.Mowday RT, Steers RM, Porter LW. The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocation Behavior. 1979;14(2):224-47.
  • 23.O'Brien-pallas L, Murphy GT, Shamiran J, Li X, Hayes LJ. Impact and determinants of nurse turnover: a pan-Canadian study. Journal of Nursing Management. 2010;18(8):1073-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01167.x.
  • 24.Lee EH, Cho KS, Son HM, Yi YJ, Yoo CS. Frequency and severity of the nurses'role conflict in the hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Clinical nursing research. 2013;19(1):81-95.
  • 25.Brooks BA, Storfjell J, Omoike O, Ohlson S, Stemler L, Shaver J, et al. Assessing the quality of nursing work life. Nursing Administration Quarterly. 2007;31(2):152-7.
  • 26.Ryu YO, Ko E. Influence of emotional labor and nursing professional values on job satisfaction in small and medium-sized hospital nurses. Journal of Korean Academy of Fundamentals of Nursing. 2015;22(1):7-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.7739/jkafn.2015.22.1.7.
  • 27.Clow KA, Ricciardelli R, Bartfay WJ. Attitudes and stereotypes of male and female nurses: The influence of social roles and ambivalent sexism. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2014;46(3):446-55.
  • 28.Price JL, Mueller CWAbsenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.;; 1986.
  • 29.Downing SM. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Medical Education. 2004;38(9):1006-12.
  • 30.Kath LM, Stichler JF, Ehrhart MG, Schultze TA. Predictors and outcomes of nurse leader job stress experienced by assocoation of women's health members. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing. 2013;42(1):12-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-6909.2012.01430.x.

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Influence of the Nursing Work Environment on Job Satisfaction in Male Nurses: The Mediating Effect of Social Support
      DongHyun KIM, Hyunjin OH
      Journal of Nursing Research.2024; 32(6): e356.     CrossRef
    • Male nurses’ adaptation experiences after turnover to community institutions in Korea: A grounded theory methodology
      Ja-Sook Kim, Suhyun Kim, Hyang-In Cho Chung, Sally Mohammed Farghaly
      PLOS ONE.2024; 19(5): e0302819.     CrossRef
    • A Structural Equation Model for Turnover Intention of General Hospital Nurses: Focusing on Mediation Effect of Organizational Silence
      Mi-Hwan Kim, Myungja Kim
      Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration.2024; 30(2): 102.     CrossRef
    • Effects of External Employment Opportunities, Nursing Professionalism, and Nursing Work Environments on Korean Hospital Nurses’ Intent to Stay or Leave
      Mi-Aie Lee, So-Hee Lim
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2023; 20(5): 4026.     CrossRef
    • The Influence of Role Conflict, Head Nurses' Super Leadership, and Nursing Organizational Culture on Organizational Commitment of Male Nurses
      Mingi Chang, Yujeong Kim
      Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration.2022; 28(5): 558.     CrossRef
    • Factors Influencing Organizational Commitment Among Male Nurses in Korea
      Kwang-Min Choi, Mi-Kyeong Jeon
      Journal of Acute Care Surgery.2021; 11(2): 71.     CrossRef
    • Factors Influencing Turnover Intention among Male Nurses in Korea
      Su Ol Kim, Sun-Hee Moon
      International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2021; 18(18): 9862.     CrossRef
    • Male Nurses' Experiences of Being Rejected in Nursing Practice
      Gyeong Hye Choi, Hyeon Ju Kim, Joo Hyun Kim, Eun Sook Nam, Hye Jin Hyun, Hyun Wook Kang, Sung Ja Yoon, Hyun Jeong Son, Hyun Jeong Kim, Ah Rm Whang, Won Hee Kim
      Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education.2018; 24(1): 16.     CrossRef
    • Relationship of Gender Role Conflict and Job Satisfaction to Turnover Intention for Men in Nursing
      Ha-Man Hwang, Myung Ja Kim
      Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration.2017; 23(1): 32.     CrossRef

    Download Citation

    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

    Format:

    Include:

    A Prediction Model on the Male Nurses' Turnover Intention
    Korean J Adult Nurs. 2016;28(5):585-594.   Published online October 31, 2016
    Download Citation
    Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

    Format:
    • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
    • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
    Include:
    • Citation for the content below
    A Prediction Model on the Male Nurses' Turnover Intention
    Korean J Adult Nurs. 2016;28(5):585-594.   Published online October 31, 2016
    Close

    Figure

    • 0
    • 1
    A Prediction Model on the Male Nurses' Turnover Intention
    Image Image
    Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
    Figure 2. Path diagram of the hypothetical model including control variable.
    A Prediction Model on the Male Nurses' Turnover Intention

    Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (N=306)

    Variables M±SD Skewness Kurtosis Range
    Job opportunity 8.70±2.38 1.49 -0.73 3~15
    Kinship responsibility 5.29±1.65 1.19 -1.50 2~10
    Positive emotion 16.31±3.11 -2.34 2.32 5~25
    Work autonomy 11.45±2.98 -0.80 -1.02 4~20
    Role conflict 10.87±2.73 2.26 -0.19 4~20
    Work satisfaction 12.98±2.80 -1.83 1.25 4~20
    Organizational commitment 22.93±4.53 -0.99 1.16 7~35
    Turnover intention 12.51±3.43 0.60 -1.62 4~20

    Fit Index of the Hypothetical Model

    Model x2 (p) DF Normed x2 GFI AGFI CFI NFI IFI SRMR RMSEA
    Acceptance criteria (p>.05)   ≤3 .90~1 .90~1 .90~1 .90~1 .90~1 ≤.05 ≤.08
    Hypothetic Model 0 0 0 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 .33
    Modified Model 8.78 (.12) 5 1.76 .99 .95 .99 .99 .99 .02 .05

    GFI=goodness of fit index; AGFI=adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI=comparative fit index; NFI=normed fit index; IFI=incremental fit index; SRMR=standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation.

    Direct Effect, Indirect Effect, and Total Effect in Hypothetical Model

    Endogenous variables Exogenous variables SE CR p SMC Direct effect p Indirect effect p Total effect p
    Work satisfaction       .613   <.001     -.11 <.001
       Job opportunity -.13 -3.66 <.001 -.11 <.001 .73 <.001
       Positive emotion .65 17.17 <.001 .73 <.001 .18 <.001
       Work autonomy .19 5.25 <.001 .18 .005 -.10 .005
       Role conflict -.10 -2.85 .005 -.10      
    Organizational commitment       .643            
       Job opportunity -.17 -5.07 <.001 -.14 <.001 -.07 <.001 -.21 <.001
       Kinship responsibility .08 2.50 .013 .06 .013     .06 .013
       Positive emotion           .46 <.001 .46 <.001
       Work autonomy .07 2.06 .041 .06 .041 .11 <.001 .18 <.001
       Role conflict -.07 -2.09 .038 -.07 .038 -.06 .005 -.14 .001
       Work satisfaction .69 17.63 <.001 .64 <.001     .64 <.001
    Turnover intention       .542          
       Job opportunity .12 2.40 .003 .13 .003 .15 <.001 .29 <.001
       Kinship responsibility           -.03 .022 -.03 .022
       Positive emotion           -.52 <.001 -.52 <.001
       Work autonomy           -.16 <.001 -.16 <.001
    Role conflict .08 1.99 .046 .10 .046 .11 .001 .21 <.001
       Work satisfaction -.33 -5.20 <.001 -.39 <.001 -.327 .001 -.72 <.001
       Organizational commitment -.38 -6.04 <.001 -.51 <.001     -.51 <.001

    Value from Bootstrapping method.

    SE=Standard Estimate; CR=Critical ratio; SMC=Squared multiple correlation.

    Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables (N=306)

    Table 2. Fit Index of the Hypothetical Model

    GFI=goodness of fit index; AGFI=adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI=comparative fit index; NFI=normed fit index; IFI=incremental fit index; SRMR=standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation.

    Table 3. Direct Effect, Indirect Effect, and Total Effect in Hypothetical Model

    Value from Bootstrapping method.

    SE=Standard Estimate; CR=Critical ratio; SMC=Squared multiple correlation.

    TOP