MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205186611 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v14n2p37

Relationship between Job Satisfaction, Pay, Affective Commitment and Turnover Intention among Registered Nurses in Nigeria

2022· article· en· W4205186611 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akinyemi Benjamin, Babu George, Alice I. Ogundele

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob satisfactionOrganizational commitmentTurnover intentionPsychologyJob attitudeTurnoverSocial psychologyNursingJob performanceMedicineManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to examine the relationship between job satisfaction, pay, affective commitment, and turnover intentions of public hospitals-based Registered Nurses in Ondo State, Nigeria. Using the quantitative, cross-sectional survey design, data from 220 Registered Nurses were analysed. Results indicate that pay and job satisfaction have significant positive relationship with nurses’ affective commitment; pay has significant positive relationship with their job satisfaction but pay, job satisfaction and affective commitment have negative relationship with turnover intentions. Job satisfaction is of critical importance in gaining nurses’ affective commitment and enhancing retention. Pay is often considered as a hygiene factor in theories of motivation – meaning, even though pay decreases might cause dissatisfaction, pay increases would not increase satisfaction. This does not appear to be the case in Nigeria. These findings have implications for health human resource management in general and the management of nursing staff in the public hospitals of Ondo State, Nigeria in particular.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.346 · 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

Citations36
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207