The Nursing Worklife Model: Extending and Refining a New Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We tested a modification of Leiter and Laschinger's Nursing Worklife Model by examining the impact of structural empowerment on professional work environment factors that lead to nursing job satisfaction. BACKGROUND: The original model explains how five magnet hospital practice domains described by Lake (2002) interact to influence nurses' work lives by either contributing to or mitigating burnout. METHODS: A non-experimental design was used. Five hundred randomly selected nurses in Michigan were surveyed (response rate 66%, n = 332). Instruments included the Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II, the Practice Environment Scale of the Nursing Work Index, and the Index of Work Satisfaction. Path analysis was used to test the model. RESULTS: The final model fit the data well (chi2 = 96.4, d.f. = 10, NFI: 0.90, CFI: 0.43, RMSEA: 0.18), supporting both hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded Nursing Worklife Model demonstrates the role of empowerment in creating positive practice conditions that contribute to job satisfaction.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".