模糊容忍度与护理专业本科生的决策风格无关

Beth Hogan Quigley, Desiree Fleck, Krzysztof Laudanski
{"title":"模糊容忍度与护理专业本科生的决策风格无关","authors":"Beth Hogan Quigley, Desiree Fleck, Krzysztof Laudanski","doi":"10.5430/jnep.v14n2p38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Relationships of tolerance of ambiguity, decision-making style, risk-taking behaviors, and the use of supportive and complex care in end-of-life scenarios was investigated in this descriptive correlational study of 377 undergraduate nursing students. The mean for rational decision-making style was 2.332 (agree), while the overall mean for intuitive decision-making was 2.406 (range = 2.37 to 2.489) among all students although higher among sophomore students (2.489, SD = 0.655). The median tolerance of ambiguity scores was higher for juniors and seniors (9.00) compared to sophomore students (8.00). Intuitive decision-making was not associated with level of education. There was no statistically significant correlation between decision-making style and tolerance of ambiguity although there was a negative correlation between intuitive decision-making and tolerance of ambiguity (rs = -0.031, p = .547). Additionally, there was a negative small correlation between rational decision-making and tolerance of ambiguity (rs = -0.040, p = .441). Finally, there was a small statistically significant correlation for supportive care for vignette 1(rs = 0.119, p = .021). All correlations between intuition decision-making and supportive care were low (rs = –0.067-0.119). In conclusion, decision-making style was not related to supportive care. Although intuitive decision-making style was used more frequently by sophomores, there was no statistically significant difference between level of education and decision-making style or tolerance of ambiguity.","PeriodicalId":73866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nursing education and practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tolerance of ambiguity is not related to decision-making styles in undergraduate nursing students\",\"authors\":\"Beth Hogan Quigley, Desiree Fleck, Krzysztof Laudanski\",\"doi\":\"10.5430/jnep.v14n2p38\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Relationships of tolerance of ambiguity, decision-making style, risk-taking behaviors, and the use of supportive and complex care in end-of-life scenarios was investigated in this descriptive correlational study of 377 undergraduate nursing students. The mean for rational decision-making style was 2.332 (agree), while the overall mean for intuitive decision-making was 2.406 (range = 2.37 to 2.489) among all students although higher among sophomore students (2.489, SD = 0.655). The median tolerance of ambiguity scores was higher for juniors and seniors (9.00) compared to sophomore students (8.00). Intuitive decision-making was not associated with level of education. There was no statistically significant correlation between decision-making style and tolerance of ambiguity although there was a negative correlation between intuitive decision-making and tolerance of ambiguity (rs = -0.031, p = .547). Additionally, there was a negative small correlation between rational decision-making and tolerance of ambiguity (rs = -0.040, p = .441). Finally, there was a small statistically significant correlation for supportive care for vignette 1(rs = 0.119, p = .021). All correlations between intuition decision-making and supportive care were low (rs = –0.067-0.119). In conclusion, decision-making style was not related to supportive care. Although intuitive decision-making style was used more frequently by sophomores, there was no statistically significant difference between level of education and decision-making style or tolerance of ambiguity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of nursing education and practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of nursing education and practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v14n2p38\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nursing education and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v14n2p38","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这项对 377 名护理专业本科生进行的描述性相关研究中,调查了在临终情景中对模糊性的容忍度、决策风格、冒险行为以及支持性护理和复杂护理的使用之间的关系。在所有学生中,理性决策风格的平均值为 2.332(同意),而直觉决策风格的总体平均值为 2.406(范围 = 2.37 至 2.489),但大二学生的平均值更高(2.489,SD = 0.655)。与大二学生(8.00)相比,大三和大四学生的模糊容忍度中位数更高(9.00)。直觉决策与受教育程度无关。尽管直觉决策与模糊容忍度之间存在负相关(rs = -0.031,p = .547),但决策风格与模糊容忍度之间在统计学上没有明显的相关性。此外,理性决策与模糊容忍度之间也存在微小的负相关(rs = -0.040,p = .441)。最后,小插曲 1 中的支持性关怀存在统计学意义上的小相关性(rs = 0.119,p = 0.021)。直觉决策与支持性护理之间的相关性都很低(rs = -0.067-0.119)。总之,决策风格与支持性护理无关。虽然高二学生更常使用直觉决策风格,但教育水平与决策风格或对模糊性的容忍度之间并无统计学意义上的显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Tolerance of ambiguity is not related to decision-making styles in undergraduate nursing students
Relationships of tolerance of ambiguity, decision-making style, risk-taking behaviors, and the use of supportive and complex care in end-of-life scenarios was investigated in this descriptive correlational study of 377 undergraduate nursing students. The mean for rational decision-making style was 2.332 (agree), while the overall mean for intuitive decision-making was 2.406 (range = 2.37 to 2.489) among all students although higher among sophomore students (2.489, SD = 0.655). The median tolerance of ambiguity scores was higher for juniors and seniors (9.00) compared to sophomore students (8.00). Intuitive decision-making was not associated with level of education. There was no statistically significant correlation between decision-making style and tolerance of ambiguity although there was a negative correlation between intuitive decision-making and tolerance of ambiguity (rs = -0.031, p = .547). Additionally, there was a negative small correlation between rational decision-making and tolerance of ambiguity (rs = -0.040, p = .441). Finally, there was a small statistically significant correlation for supportive care for vignette 1(rs = 0.119, p = .021). All correlations between intuition decision-making and supportive care were low (rs = –0.067-0.119). In conclusion, decision-making style was not related to supportive care. Although intuitive decision-making style was used more frequently by sophomores, there was no statistically significant difference between level of education and decision-making style or tolerance of ambiguity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
“What are we doing here?”: Reflections on developing a transcultural “Road Map” for global menstrual hygiene management Analysis of nurses’ intention to resign and its reasons in a tertiary Grade-A hospital in Beijing during the post-pandemic era Utilizing learning communities to enhance classroom and clinical synergy across the curriculum Contraceptive use in the Gaza Strip: A systematic review Supporting graduate students’ skills with simulated experiences in a professional foundation course
×
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