MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of Staff Nurse Empowerment on Person-Job Fit and Work Engagement/Burnout

2006· article· en· W2038681352 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heather K. Spence Laschinger, Carol Wong, Paula Greco

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Administration Quarterly · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicHealthcare Education and Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutWork engagementEmpowermentPsychologyNursing staffWork (physics)NursingNurse AdministratorApplied psychologyMEDLINEMedicineClinical psychologyPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workplace empowerment is an important strategy for creating positive nursing work environments in a time of a severe nursing shortage. The purpose of this study was to test a model linking staff nurse perceptions of empowerment to their perceived fit with 6 areas of work life and work engagement/burnout using Kanter's work empowerment theory. We tested the model in a cross-sectional correlational survey design with a random sample of 322 staff nurses in acute care hospitals across Ontario. Overall, staff nurses perceived their work environment to be only somewhat empowering. Fifty-three percent reported severe levels of burnout. Overall empowerment had an indirect effect on emotional exhaustion (burnout) through nurses' perceived fit in 6 areas of work life. The final model fit statistics revealed a good fit (chi2 = 32.4, df = 13, GFI = 0.97, IFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.07). These findings have important implications in the current nursing shortage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations169
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing Administration QuarterlySame topicHealthcare Education and Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207