Impact of Structural and Psychological Empowerment on Job Strain in Nursing Work Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we tested an expanded model of Kanter's structural empowerment, which specified the relationships among structural and psychological empowerment, job strain, and work satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Strategies proposed in Kanter's empowerment theory have the potential to reduce job strain and improve employee work satisfaction and performance in current restructured healthcare settings. The addition to the model of psychological empowerment as an outcome of structural empowerment provides an understanding of the intervening mechanisms between structural work conditions and important organizational outcomes. METHODS: A predictive, nonexperimental design was used to test the model in a random sample of 404 Canadian staff nurses. The Conditions of Work Effectiveness Questionnaire, the Psychological Empowerment Questionnaire, the Job Content Questionnaire, and the Global Satisfaction Scale were used to measure the major study variables. RESULTS: Structural equation modelling analyses revealed a good fit of the hypothesized model to the data based on various fit indices (chi 2 = 1140, df = 545, chi 2/df ratio = 2.09, CFI = 0.986, RMSEA = 0.050). The amount of variance accounted for in the model was 58%. Staff nurses felt that structural empowerment in their workplace resulted in higher levels of psychological empowerment. These heightened feelings of psychological empowerment in turn strongly influenced job strain and work satisfaction. However, job strain did not have a direct effect on work satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide initial support for an expanded model of organizational empowerment and offer a broader understanding of the empowerment 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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".