Beyond Men's Experiences: Scale Development and Psychometric Testing of the Fitness in Nursing Scale-Men (FiNS-M©).

IF 0.7 Q4 NURSING Journal of nursing measurement Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1891/JNM-2023-0032
Christopher M Smith, Carolyn E Horne, Mark C Bowler
{"title":"Beyond Men's Experiences: Scale Development and Psychometric Testing of the Fitness in Nursing Scale-Men (FiNS-M©).","authors":"Christopher M Smith, Carolyn E Horne, Mark C Bowler","doi":"10.1891/JNM-2023-0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and Purpose:</b> Men believe they are perceived as unfit for nursing. No scales exist to measure perceptions of men's fitness for nursing. Additionally, women have been largely excluded from this area of inquiry. This study's purpose was to develop and test the psychometric properties of the Fitness in Nursing Scale for Men. <b>Methods:</b> Six hundred thirty-five nurses participated. Scale development entailed concept clarification, item development, and scale testing. <b>Results:</b> Confirmatory factor analysis suggested a two-factor structure (F1: nursing fitness and F2: strengths of men in nursing) which demonstrated good model fit, root mean square error of approximation = 0.059, 90% CI (0.056, 0.063), standardized root mean square residual = 0.055, comparative fit index = 0.932, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.927, and ω<sub>t</sub> = 0.98. Invariance held. Latent means were not significantly different for women (<i>M</i> = 5.90) compared with men (<i>M</i> = 5.92). <b>Conclusions:</b> Findings suggest men are perceived as fit for nursing, but results are inconsistent with men's qualitative experiences. Future research should attempt to reconcile the disagreement. Findings can inform cultural awareness strategies in the workplace and classroom.</p>","PeriodicalId":16585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nursing measurement","volume":" ","pages":"359-370"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nursing measurement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1891/JNM-2023-0032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Purpose: Men believe they are perceived as unfit for nursing. No scales exist to measure perceptions of men's fitness for nursing. Additionally, women have been largely excluded from this area of inquiry. This study's purpose was to develop and test the psychometric properties of the Fitness in Nursing Scale for Men. Methods: Six hundred thirty-five nurses participated. Scale development entailed concept clarification, item development, and scale testing. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis suggested a two-factor structure (F1: nursing fitness and F2: strengths of men in nursing) which demonstrated good model fit, root mean square error of approximation = 0.059, 90% CI (0.056, 0.063), standardized root mean square residual = 0.055, comparative fit index = 0.932, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.927, and ωt = 0.98. Invariance held. Latent means were not significantly different for women (M = 5.90) compared with men (M = 5.92). Conclusions: Findings suggest men are perceived as fit for nursing, but results are inconsistent with men's qualitative experiences. Future research should attempt to reconcile the disagreement. Findings can inform cultural awareness strategies in the workplace and classroom.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超越男性的经验:男性护理体能量表(FiNS-M)的量表开发和心理测试。
背景和目的:男性认为自己不适合从事护理工作。目前还没有量表来衡量男性是否适合从事护理工作。此外,女性在很大程度上被排除在这一调查领域之外。本研究的目的是开发并测试 "男性护理能力量表 "的心理测量特性。研究方法:635 名护士参与了研究。量表开发包括概念澄清、项目开发和量表测试。结果确认性因素分析表明存在双因素结构(F1:护理体能和 F2:男性护理优势),模型拟合度良好,均方根近似误差 = .059,90% CI(.056, .063),标准化均方根残差 = .055,比较拟合指数 = .932,Tucker-Lewis 指数 = .927,ωt = .98。保持不变。与男性(M = 5.92)相比,女性(M = 5.90)的潜在平均值没有明显差异。结论:研究结果表明,男性被认为适合从事护理工作,但结果与男性的定性经验不一致。未来的研究应尝试调和这一分歧。研究结果可为工作场所和课堂的文化意识策略提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: The Journal of Nursing Measurement specifically addresses instrumentation in nursing. It serves as a prime forum for disseminating information on instruments, tools, approaches, and procedures developed or utilized for measuring variables in nursing research, practice, and education. Particular emphasis is placed on evidence for the reliability and validity or sensitivity and specificity of such instruments. The journal includes innovative discussions of theories, principles, practices, and issues relevant to nursing measurement.
期刊最新文献
Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Moulage Authenticity Rating Scale and Proposed Adaptations. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Foot Health Assessment Instrument in Pregnant Women. Instruments Important to Help Increase Diversity Equity and Inclusion. The Italian Version of the Ward Safety and Security Rules Survey for Mental Health Nurses: A Validity Study. Development of the Followership Evaluation Instrument for Nurses: A Prospective Longitudinal Survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1