Analysis of quantitative research report methodology and findings

¶ … Tebeaux (2010) observes, is to provide a summary of the relevant research in a given area. This allows researchers to not only the ability to identify what gaps may exist in the scholarly literature on a given topic, but also how proposed research fits into or fills gaps in the reviewed literature. In an effort to support the need for the study, Hayhurst et al., (2005) provides a literature review that focuses on the positive and negative factors influencing nurse retention efforts. However, the literature review provided by Hayhurst et al., (2005) is marginal at best; it serves only to remind readers that nurses are not happy when job satisfaction is low, when management style and supervisory support are lacking, when work related pressures and personal or peer-conflict issues are present.

In contrast, nurse retention, Hayhurst et al., (2005) notes, is correlated with higher favorable perceptions of the work environment. For example, when nurses feel they "belong" to the organization, or feel a strong sense of peer connection, they tend to remain on at their current jobs. Runy (2006) notes that older nurse retention is an imperative for health care organizations in an effort to curb relatively high turnover and attrition rates. While nurse retention and job satisfaction may be related and the need for the study existing, the Hayhurst et al., (2005) offers little to support the need for a study on factors associated with nurse retention efforts in conjunction with workplace conditions.

The literature review provided does little but to offer a tautology in nurse retention causes and cures. Further, the literature review seems to offer little in the way of substance; it only marginally addresses concerns related to job satisfaction, reasons for job dissatisfaction, and offers as evidence of the need for the study other data collected from prior survey administrations in other research studies. Erenstein and McCaffrey (2007) note that among the myriad reasons for the current nursing shortage in the United States is dissatisfaction with the work environment. McCauley (2005) further elaborates how lacking satisfaction of nursing practitioners in hospital settings can have important and deleterious consequences for hospital safety noting that significant evidence suggests unsupportive and un-nurturing environments can result in unhealthy medical care environments due to medical errors. AbuAlRub (2004) found that social support and peer approval were both highly correlated with job-related satisfaction markers in the nursing field. Further, upon administering a job-stress scale, AbuAlRub (2004) found that even slight indications of job stressors have significant negative consequences such as increased staff attrition and turnover rates, absenteeism, and an overall decline in the quality of care provided by all hospital staff. Unfortunately, the Hayhurst et al., (2005) study did not significantly detail either the positive and negative consequences of nurse related job dissatisfaction markers from the scholarly literature.

Sample and Setting

The Hayhurst et al., (2005) study utilized a convenience sample of volunteer research participants consisting of RN's working at one hospital setting in Northern California. While this sample population may be representative of the hospital location under investigation, as it purports to encompass nurses from "all shifts," and the return rate of the survey packets is reasonable, the sample chosen fails to account for nurses in other hospital settings, under other working conditions or special types of nurses, such as "staff development nurses" and "clinical nurse specialists" Hayhurst et al., (2005, pg. 284). Further, participation was based on volunteer nurse surveys rather than utilizing a random sampling technique; those that either did not volunteer, or did not return their surveys were not considered in the data analysis section of the Hayhurst et al. (2005) study.

How is the sample representative of the population?

The sample size is large enough to measure the sample population chosen, but isn't representative of other nurses outside of the chosen Northern California hospital setting. In other words, the sample represents the population of nurses at the one Northern California hospital under study. However, only certain nurses were solicited for the research, while other nurse practitioners were denied participation in the study. The generalizability of the study is limited given the distribution of the survey packets to only selected nurses who volunteered to participate at one, and only one, hospital. Clearly, this lacking generalizability devalues the importance of the Hayhurst et al. (2005) study given the lack of representation among cross sections of nursing practioners.

Data Collection Methods

In what way(s) is the data collection procedures appropriate for this study?

The data collection procedures for this study involve distributing and collecting voluntary responses to a survey packet distributed to nearly 700 nurse practitioners at one hospital. The research does not involve utilizing cross sectional analysis or provide for means to achieve random sampling. The effects of utilizing non-probability sampling are that results are not generalizable because the results are not representative to other populations.

The data collection methods utilized in this study are appropriate given the limitations of the study and the desire to simply analyze how nurses feel about their jobs in one hospital located in Northern California. However, the data collection procedures did not specifically detail how anonymity would be guaranteed, nor did the collection procedures provide for alternative methods of data collection. The nurses were simply given a survey packet, asked to provide answers to the survey instrument and return via postal mail. A particular concern then is how the researchers are able to determine that the survey responses are actually from the intended recipients.

In what way were appropriate steps taken to protect the rights of the subjects?

The Hayhurst et al. (2005) study followed protocol concerning research on human subjects by following and adhering to the hospital facility's institutional review board (IRB). Rather than personally distributing the sealed survey packets, the researcher's utilized the assistance of the hospital's unit manager to distribute the voluntary survey questionnaires. While there is no mention of anonymity of survey responses, the researchers had survey respondents complete the survey while off duty and mail back to the researchers via postal mail in a self-addressed stamped envelope. It is interesting to note that the researchers were provided with confidential data concerning retention statistics by the hospital human resources department. While the researchers acknowledge the information received by the human resources department were confidential, it may be a violation of employee rights to receive such information for other than hospital related services.