MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159760712 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v4n11p66

Effects of job stress and coping behaviour on job satisfaction in Korean male nurses

2014· article· en· W2159760712 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Se‐Won Kang, Youngmi Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicHealthcare Education and Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob satisfactionCoping (psychology)Job stressPsychologyQuartileClinical psychologyDescriptive statisticsMedicineSocial psychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of job stress and coping behaviour on job satisfaction in Korean male nurses. Methods : The structured questionnaires were used for the survey of 73 male nurses who worked in hospitals located in B and S City in South Korea. To measure job stress, we used a Korean job stress scale. To measure coping behaviour, we used an instrument developed by Han & Oh (1990), and for job satisfaction, an instrument developed by Kim (2010). The data were analysed using PASW 18.0 (Chicago, USA), including descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, and ANOVAs. Results : The results showed mean job stress score of 3.27, mean coping behaviour score of 3.14 and mean job satisfaction score of 3.28 (all scores on a 5-point scale). Job satisfaction was positively correlated with coping behaviour ( r = 0.426, p < .001), but was not correlated with job stress. In addition, job satisfaction was higher among subjects with coping behaviour scores in the highest quartile than among those with coping behaviour scores in the lowest quartile ( t = -2.881, p = .007). Conclusion: Coping behaviour was found to be a relevant factor influencing the job satisfaction of male nurses. Thus, an environment and workplace culture that allows male nurses to develop and apply their coping ability must be cultivated in order to promote 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicHealthcare Education and Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207