Predictors of Program Satisfaction Among Male Nursing Students

Randelle Sasa, Elizabeth Capezuti, Juan Battle, Marlon Saria, & William Samuels

Background

  • Gender role conflict may contribute to male undergraduate students’ dissatisfaction with their nursing programs
  • Examined the relationships between:
    1. Gender role conflict
    2. Campus climate
    3. Satisfaction with one’s nursing program
    4. Demographic factors
    • Among undergraduate male nursing students

Methods

Procedure

  • Recruited participants through emails sent by the National Student Nurses Association to their members
  • Screened potential participants for eligibility
    • Identifies as male
    • Currently enrolled in an undergraduate nursing program with clinical rotations
    • Hasn’t previously attained a degree that prepared one to become a registered nurse
  • Administered online a self-report battery of established instruments (& demographic items)

Instruments: Gender Role Conflict

  • Gender Role Conflict Scale – Short Form (O’Neil et al., 1986)
    • Widely used (32 countries, 20 languages)
    • Coefficient αs = .75 – .85
    • Good evidence to validly predict & discriminate constructs

Instruments: Campus Climate

  • Adapted version of the Inventory of Male Friendliness in Nursing Programs
    • Assesses specific gender-related barriers in nursing programs
    • Coefficient αs = .80 to .84
    • The creator (O’Lynn & Tranbarger, 2007) found that it well measures campus climate
    • Currently-used version included 14 of the original 39 items

Instruments: Program Satisfaction

  • Subset of items from the Nursing Student Satisfaction Survey (Chen et al., 2012)
    • Measures nursing students’ satisfaction with their nursing program
    • Coefficient αs = .85 – .93
    • Validly predicts outcomes within:
      • Baccalaureate nursing programs (Chen et al., 2012) &
      • Associate degree nursing programs (Chen & Lo, 2012)

Instruments: Demographics

  • Age
  • Gender identity
  • Sexual orientation
  • Race/ethnicity
  • Highest educational attainment prior to nursing school
  • Type of nursing program (associate or bachelor degree in nursing)
  • Expected date of graduation
  • Employment status
  • Prior experience in healthcare
  • Marital status
  • Family care-giving experience
  • Household income
  • Geographic location

Results

Participants

  • Conducted 2 recruitment drives (though NSNA)
Outcome 1st Drive 2nd Drive Total
N emails sent 4487 4425 8912
N emails opened 1672 1771 3443
N clicked on the link 75 76 151
N eligible and responded 57 55 112
Response rate
(responses/sent)		 1.27% 1.24% 1.26%

Participants (cont.)

  • 100 of 112 eligible participants retained
    • Other 12 had excessive missing data
  • Missingness among retained 100 was:
    • Modest: 6.4%
    • Missing completely at random (Little’s χ² = 475.35, df = 521, p = .925)
  • Estimated missing values among retained 100 via multiple imputation

Participants (end)

  • Median age group: 18 – 35
  • Never married: 56%
  • Cis-gendered (88%) & heterosexual (67%)
    • 1 identified as a transgendered male
  • White (67%), Latino (13%), Black (8%), Asian (7%)
  • In bachelor program: 60%
  • 50% expected to graduate within 1 year
  • Current or previous experience in healthcare: 55%
  • Family care-giving experience: 39%

Instrument Reliabilities


Instrument		 Coefficient α
Gender role conflict – Short Form .83
Nursing Student Satisfaction Survey .96
Inventory of Male Friendliness of Nursing Programs (Adapted) .83

Correlations

  • Relatively few correlations; sig. included:
    • Age with education, marital status, family care-giving
    • Healthcare experience with household income
  • Correlations between main variable:
Program
Satisfaction
GRC
Gender Role Conflict -.122
Campus Climate .600 -.293

Main Analyses

  • Linear regression predicting program satisfaction
  • Results for main variables & other significant ones:
Predictor β SE p
Gender Role Conflict -0.024 0.096 .799
Campus Climate 0.518 0.101 < .001
Recruitment Drive 0.584 0.209 .007
Sexual Orientation: Gay -0.754 0.352 .036
Geo. Region: South 0.769 0.291 .010

Additional Analyses: Black Students

  • Further investigated experiences of Black students

  • One-way ANOVA predicting program satisfaction:

Race N Mean SD F p η²
Black 8 96.38 21.57 3.63 0.06 0.036
Not Black 92 109.97 19.18
Total 100 108.88 19.62

(Lakens, 2013, suggests “small” η² = 0.01; “medium” = 0.06, “large” ≥ 0.14)

Additional Analyses: Black Students (cont.)

  • One-way ANOVA predicting campus climate:
Race Mean SD F p η²
Black 34.00 8.19 7.03 0.090 0.067
Not Black 41.65 7.80

Conclusions

  • Campus climate—but not gender role conflict—affects male students’ satisfaction with their nursing program
    • Effects may be more acute among minoritized (e.g., Black) students
  • Students who identified as gay also tended to be less satisfied with their program
  • Therefore, a welcoming campus climate that considers the needs of diverse students may improve the satisfaction of this important group of potential nurses

Thank You

References

Chen, H. & Lo, H. (2012). Development and psychometric testing of the Nursing Student Satisfaction Scale for the associate nursing programs. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 2(3), 25–37. doi: 10.5430/jnep.v2n3p25.

Chen, H., Farmer, S., Barber, L., & Wayman, M. (2012). Development and psychometric testing of the Nursing Student Satisfaction Scale. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6), 369–393. doi: 10.5480/1536-5026-33.6.369.

Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

O’Lynn, C. & Tranbarger, R. (2007). Men in nursing: History, challenges, and opportunities. Springer.

O’Neil, J., Helms, B., & Gable, R. (1986). Gender-role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335–350. doi: 10.1007/BF00287583.