Professional development, target-specific satisfaction, and older nurse retention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Drawing from attitude-behavioral intentions correspondence and target similarity, the aim of this paper is to examine the role of target-specific satisfaction facets in the relationship between factors related to professional development and older nurses' intention to remain with their organization. Design/methodology/approach – In this longitudinal panel study, 422 hospital-employed registered nurses aged 45 to 64 completed a questionnaire (T1) and a second questionnaire (T2) a year later. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized model. Findings – Availability of training and development practices targeted to older nurses at T1 was linked to intention to remain with the organization at T2 through T1 satisfaction with professional development opportunities and T2 satisfaction with the organization as a whole. Job challenge at T1 was related to intention to remain through T1 satisfaction with the job itself and T2 satisfaction with the organization. Research limitations/implications – The occupation-specific sample may limit the generalizability of the findings. Practical implications – Organizations need to ensure that older nurses have the opportunity to upgrade their current job skills, to acquire new skills, to be adequately trained on the use of new technology, and to support professional development through release time, tuition reimbursement, and education leaves. Attention also needs to be directed towards job design and ensuring older nurses' jobs fully utilize their skills and expertise. Originality/value – The findings demonstrate that target-specific facets of satisfaction are an important underlying mechanism linking professional development factors and older nurses' intention to remain. Organizational satisfaction, an under-researched construct, played an especially prominent role in this process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".