Nursing Upon Reviewing the Study, \"Role Stress

Nursing

Upon reviewing the study, "Role stress and job satisfaction for nurse specialists" conducted by Chen, Chen, Tsai, and Lo in 2007, several different problems with the study come to light. Some of these problems or issues may be insignificant while others may be so significant as to render the study meaningless. Certainly in view of these issues, this study should not be used as a basis for recommending any administrative or legislative changes with regard to nurse specialists.

One of the first issues to arise when reviewing this study is the fact that such a small sample was chosen. The number of respondents was limited to one hundred and twenty nine nurse specialists (Chen, et al., 2007). This does not seem to be an adequate sampling to ensure valid results. To correct for this, a larger sample should be administered a questionnaire. Obviously, the larger the sample, the more likely it is that the responses will more accurately reflect the general population of nurse specialists.

Further, there is another factor regarding the general population's lack of representation in this study. This study chose respondents from a very limited geographic area. Specifically, it chose respondents only from the southern region of Taiwan (Chen, et al., 2007). There is absolutely no way to determine if any of the results hold true for any population outside of southern Taiwan. Additionally, the study was limited to only six hospitals with over six hundred beds in each hospital (Chen et al., 2007). Thus, it is entirely possible that the results only ring true for nurse specialists in the southern region of Taiwan who are employed in teaching hospitals with over six hundred beds. Assuming that any of the results are accurate, they are only accurate for this very limited population of nurse specialists.

According to Chen et al., (2007), several different measurements which had been used previously were modified for various reasons. By modifying scales and questionnaires to reduce the amount of time it took respondents to complete the tests, the measuring device may have been modified beyond usefulness. If, for example, ambiguity is comprised of five factors and only four were addressed, it would not provide a clear picture of the situation, and may, in fact skew the end results; thus, invalidating all the resulting data.

Another issue, which Chen et al., (2007) mentioned early in the study but failed to address in the section which discussed study limitations, is the fact that a full thirty three percent of the respondents were currently enrolled in advanced courses . This is a significant proportion of the respondents and could, theoretically, account for the results of a stress related study. It is no secret that those enrolled in classes and working full time experience a higher degree of stress than those not attempting to both study and work. It could also account for the ambiguity findings in that these respondents, filling two roles, may have issues of role ambiguity which are not related to their roles as nurse specialists but rather to the fact that they are currently filling two roles