Safety and Health at Work

Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (산업안전보건연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Turkish Version of the Perceived Future Decent Work Securement Scale: Validity and Reliability for Nursing Students

  • Oznur Ispir Demir (Department of Gerontology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University) ;
  • Betul Sonmez (Department of Nursing Management, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa) ;
  • Duygu Gul (Department of Nursing Management, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa) ;
  • Sergul Duygulu (Department of Nursing Management, Faculty of Nursing, Hacettepe University)
  • Received : 2022.07.29
  • Accepted : 2023.07.24
  • Published : 2023.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to test the validity and reliability of the Perceived Future Decent Work Securement Scale for Turkish nursing students. Methods: A cross-sectional, methodological study design was used. The study was carried out at three nursing undergraduate programs in Turkey during the academic year of 2020-2021 with 336 senior nursing students. Language validity and content validity analyses were performed for the scale adaptation, followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for construct validity. The reliability of the scale was determined using the test-retest and Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient. Results: The scale-content validity index score was 0.988. In CFA, all goodness-of-fit indices verified the acceptable fit of the model; its root mean square error of approximation was 0.076; the normed fit index was 0.909; the standardized mean square residual was 0.097; the relative fit index was 0.881; the goodness-of-fit index was 0.915; the adjusted goodness-of-fit index was 0.872 and χ2/df = 2.932. The overall reliability was α = 0.86. The item-total correlations of the scale were above the acceptable level, and the test-retest analysis had a high correlation. The access to healthcare (14.68, SD 3.53) obtained the highest average score, and the adequate compensation (8.52, SD 3.76) was the lowest rated by the senior nursing students. Conclusion: The Perceived Future Decent Work Securement Scale is a valid and reliable scale to assess nursing students' future decent work securement.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank all students for participating in this study.

References

  1. International Labour Organization (ILO). Decent work. Report of the director general [Internet]. 87 Session. Geneva (Switzerland): International Labour Conference. 1999 [cited 2022 July 20]. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc87/rep-i.htm.
  2. International Labour Organization (ILO). [Internet]. Decent work. nd. [cited 2022 July 20]. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/decent-work/lang-en/index.htm.
  3. United Nations. The sustainable development goals report [Internet]. New York (NY): United Nations. 2021 [cited 2022 July 23]. Available from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2021.pdf.
  4. Youth Hub., Global Health Workforce Network., World Health Organization. Youth and decent work in the health and social care sector. An evidence synthesis; 2019 [Internet]. [cited 2022 July 24]. Available from: https://www.who.int/hrh/network/YouthPaper-PS-SR_23May2019.pdf.
  5. World Health Organization. State of the world's nursing 2020: investing in education, jobs and leadership; 2020 [Internet]. [cited 2022 July 25]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240003279.
  6. Salsberg E, Quigley L. Achieving sustainable and appropriately trained health and social care workers for ageing populations. In: Buchan J, Dhillon IS, Campbell J, editors. Health employment and economic growth: an evidence base. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2017. 43 p [Internet]. [cited 2022 July 27]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/326411.
  7. Duffy RD, Blustein DL, Diemer MA, Autin KL. The psychology of working theory. J Couns Psychol 2016;63(2):127-48. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000140. 2016.
  8. Fried BJ, Smith HL. Compensation practices, planning, and challenges. In: Fried BJ, Fottler MD, editors. Human resources in healthcare, managing for success. 4th ed. Chicago (Illinois: Health Administration Press; 2015. p. 275-320. 2015.
  9. Roberts GE, Gianakis JA, McCue C, Wang X. Traditional and family-friendly benefits practices in local governments: results from a national survey. Public Pers Manage 2004;33(3):307-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600403300305.
  10. Kim HJ, Duffy RD, Lee S, Lee J, Lee KH. Application of the psychology of working theory with Korean emerging adults. J Couns Psychol 2019;66(6):701-13. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000368.
  11. Kim HJ, Kim SY, Duffy RD, Nguyen NP, Wang D. A cross-cultural comparison of psychology of working theory among U.S. and Korean college students. J Couns Psychol 2020;67(5):568-79. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000408.
  12. Ma Y, Huang G, Autin KL. Linking decent work with academic engagement and satisfaction among first-generation college students: a psychology of working perspective. J Career Assess 2021;29(1):148-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072720943153.
  13. Ma Y, You J, Tang Y. Examining predictors and outcomes of decent work perception with Chinese nursing college students. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(1):254-68. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010254.
  14. ILO Office for Turkey. Youth and COVID-19: access to decent jobs in the midst of the pandemic; 2021 [Internet]. [cited 2022 July 27]. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/ankara/publications/infographics/WCMS-771447/lang-en/index.htm.
  15. ILO Office for Turkey. Social security perception of the youth in pandemics; 2021 [Internet]. [cited 2022 July 27]. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/ankara/publications/research-papers/WCMS_769246/lang-en/index.htm.
  16. Sonmez B, Gul D, Ispir Demir O, Emiralioglu R, Erkmen T, Yildirim A. Antecedents and outcomes of nurses' subjective career success: a path analysis. J Nurs Scholarsh 2021;53(5):604-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12660.
  17. Liu T, Li S, Yang R, Liu S, Chen G. Job preferences of undergraduate nursing students in eastern China: a discrete choice experiment. Hum Resour Health 2019;17(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-018-0335-3.
  18. Saber DA, Anglade D, Schirle LM. A study examining senior nursing students' expectations of work and the workforce. J Nurs Manag 2016;24(2):E183-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12322.
  19. Tas, kiran N, Kali N, Kivrak EN, Turkseven N, Yildirim GO. The opinions of the senior nursing students on the nursing profession, roles, and the future of nursing. J Pre-hospital 2020;5(1):43-56 [in Turkish]. Available from: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/hod/issue/53584/714095.
  20. Sonmez B, Yildiz Keskin A, Ispir Demir O, Emiralioglu R, Gungor S. Decent work in nursing: relationship between nursing work environment, job satisfaction, and physical and mental health. Int Nurs Rev 2023;70:78-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12771.
  21. Copanitsanou P, Fotos N, Brokalaki H. Effects of work environment on patient and nurse outcomes. Br J Nurs 2017;26(3):172-6. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2017.26.3.172.
  22. Olds DM, Aiken LH, Cimiotti JP, Lake ET. Association of nurse work environment and safety climate on patient mortality: a cross-sectional study. Int J Nurs Stud 2017;74:155-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.06.004.
  23. Lake ET, Sanders J, Duan R, Riman KA, Schoenauer KM, Chen Y. A meta-analysis of the associations between the nurse work environment in hospitals and 4 sets of outcomes. Med Care 2019;57(5):353-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001109.
  24. Al Sabei SD, Labrague LJ, Ross AM, Karkada S, Albashayreh A, Al Masroori F, et al. Nursing work environment, turnover intention, job burnout, and quality of care: the moderating role of job satisfaction. J Nurs Scholarsh 2020;52(1):95-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12528.
  25. Duffy RD, Allan BA, England JW, Blustein DL, Autin KL, Douglass RP, Ferreira J, Santos EJR. The development and initial validation of the Decent Work Scale. J Couns Psychol 2017;64(2):206-21. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000191.
  26. Wei J, Chan SHJ, Autin K. Assessing perceived future decent work securement among Chinese impoverished college students. J Career Assess 2022;30(1):3-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727211005653.
  27. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quinonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health 2018;6:149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.
  28. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health 2005;8(2):94-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.
  29. Davis LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res 1992;5(4):194-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4.
  30. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007;30(4):459-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199.
  31. Tavakol M, Wetzel A. Factor Analysis: a means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. Int J Med Educ 2020;11:245-7. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5f96.0f4a.
  32. Gunzler DD, Perzynski AT, Carle AC. Structural equation modeling for health and medicine. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press; 2021. 77 p.
  33. Sureshchandar GS. Quality 4.0ea measurement model using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) approach. Int J Qual Reliab 2023;40(1):280-303. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-06-2021-0172.
  34. Whittaker TA, Schumacker RE. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 5th ed. New York: Routledge; 2022. p. 137-8.
  35. Ullman JB. Structural equation modeling. In: Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, editors. Using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2019. p. 561-4.
  36. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Exploratory factor analysis. In: Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Hampshire, United Kingtom: Cengage Learning EMEA; 2019 p. 151p.
  37. Koo TK, Lii MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15(2):155-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
  38. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York (USA): Guilford Press; 201692p.
  39. Field A. Exploratory factor analysis. In: Carmichael M, editor. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. 4th ed. Sage Publications. 2013. p. 665-719. Available from: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=c0Wk9IuBmAoC&printsec=frontcover&hl=tr#v=onepage&q=item-total&f=false.
  40. Buyukgoze-Kavas A, Autin KL. Decent work in Turkey: context, conceptualization and assessment. J Calls Behav 2019;112:64-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.01.006.
  41. Kozan S, Is, ik E, Blustein DL. Decent work and well-being among low-income Turkish employees: testing the psychology of working theory. J Couns Psychol 2019;66(3):317-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000342.
  42. Anholon R., Rampasso IS, Dibbern T Serafim MP, Quelhas OL. COVID-19 and decent work: A bibliometric analysis. Work 71(4): 833-841. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-210966.
  43. Hernandez-Martinez A, Rodriguez-Almagro J, Martinez-Arce A, Romero-Blanco C, Garcia-Iglesias JJ, Gomez-Salgado J. Nursing students' experience and training in healthcare aid during the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. J Clin Nurs 2021;00:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15706 (Early view).
  44. International Labour Organization (ILO). ILO Nursing personnel recommendation no. 157 [Internet]; 1977 [cited 2022 July 28]. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312495.
  45. Republic of Turkey social security institution. Monthly bulletin, insured statistics; 2021. July. [Internet]. [cited 2022 July 28]. Available from: http://www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/sgk/en/detail/statistics_new/monthly_statistical_information.