Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nurse Education Today journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/nedt

What predicts nurse faculty members' intent to stay in the academic organization? A structural equation model of a national survey of nursing faculty☆ Lori Candela a,⁎, Antonio P. Gutierrez b,1, Sarah Keating c,2 a b c

School of Nursing, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 453018, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3018, United States Department of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading, Georgia Southern University, P.O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460-8144, United States Orvis School of Nursing, University of Nevada, Reno, 1664 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV 89557, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Accepted 23 December 2014 Keywords: Intent to stay in the academic organization Work life of nursing faculty Structural equation modeling National sample

s u m m a r y Objective: To investigate the relations among several factors regarding the academic context within a nationally representative sample of U.S. nursing faculty. Design: Correlational design using structural equation modeling to explore the predictive nature of several factors related to the academic organization and the work life of nursing faculty. Setting: A survey was used to evaluate several aspects of the work life of U.S. nursing faculty members. Participants: Nursing faculty members in academic organizations across the U.S. serving at either CCNE- or NLNAC-accredited institutions of higher education. Methods: Standard confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the validity of a proposed measurement model, and structural equation modeling was used to evaluate the validity of a structural/latent variable model. Results: Several direct and indirect effects were observed among the factors under investigation. Of special importance, perceptions of nurse administration's support and perceived teaching expertise positively predicted U.S. nursing faculty members' intent to stay in the academic organization. Conclusions: Understanding the way that nursing faculty members' perceptions of the various factors common to the academic context interact with intent to stay in the academic organization is essential for faculty and nursing administrators. This information can assist administrators in obtaining more resources for faculty development to lobby for additional faculty in order to meet the teaching, research, and service missions of the organization; and to personalize relationships with individual faculty members to understand their needs and acknowledge their efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Introduction The public's call for accountability in learning outcomes and financial responsibility has filtered up from K-12 to higher educational levels (Sharp et al., 2011; Leveille, 2006). This includes nursing programs responsible for preparing future nurses and providing programs for current nurses returning for advanced degrees. Costs for everything, from faculty recruitment/retention/turnover and resources needed to educate students are on the incline. Doing more with less has become the norm, often referred to as the academic intensification of work ☆ Funding source: This study was funded through a grant from the American Nurses Foundation (ANF). ANF was not involved in any aspect of the research design, collection, analysis, interpretation or writing of this report. ⁎ Corresponding author Tel.: +1 702 895 2443; fax: +1 702 895 4307. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Candela), [email protected] (A.P. Gutierrez), [email protected] (S. Keating). 1 Tel.: +1 912 478 0008; fax: +1 912 478 5382. 2 Tel.: +1 352 363 6624.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.018 0260-6917/Published by Elsevier Ltd.

(Houston et al., 2006). The urgency to minimize costs and maximize learning outcomes sparks renewed interest in the work life of nursing faculty and their intent to stay within their academic organization. Beyond the commitment to provide quality education for current students, nursing faculty members are involved in service activities within the university and often beyond. Many faculty members maintain clinical currency through clinical practice. Tenure-track and tenured faculty are engaged in research endeavors that include community networking, research team development, seeking funding to conduct studies, and disseminating results in professional journals, books, and conferences (Nir and Zilberstein-Levy, 2006). The diverse nature of what nursing faculty members do to meet and further the teaching, research, and service goals of their universities constitutes their work life. The lack of qualified nursing faculty to instruct the next generation of nurses is also problematic. The current and continuing shortage of nursing faculty to educate well-prepared nurses at the undergraduate and graduate levels is of major concern to the profession and the healthcare system. According

L. Candela et al. / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589

to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) in 2013, undergraduate and graduate programs turned away 78,089 qualified applicants. The reason for denying admission to undergraduate applicants was attributed to the faculty shortage by two thirds of the respondent baccalaureate programs. AACN reported on some of the national and regional strategies to lessen the shortage such as faculty loan and scholarship programs and individual state programs to increase doctorally prepared faculty (AACN, 2014). Kowalski and Kelley (2013) review the faculty shortage and the frustrations related to it including a lack of definition of the shortage, absence of its visibility to the public, its impact on the education of nurses, and the effects on the healthcare system such as cost and access to care. In order to define the shortage and illustrate the major effects of the shortage on the workforce and healthcare, Kowalski and Kelley maintain that studies of return of investment (ROI) should be conducted. For example, they state: “… eight analyses indicate the ROI from an investment in nursing faculty ranges from 350% to 1330%, varying with different underlying assumptions. In contrast, insufficient faculty investment results in a negative ROI up to 1490% and inability to provide health care services and lost revenue” (p.73). In addition, the public's call for financial responsibility and accountability for learning outcomes from K-12 to higher education has implications for nursing programs responsible for the preparation of future nurses and nurses returning for advanced degrees (Sharp et al., 2011; Leveille, 2006). Increased costs to nursing programs for everything from faculty recruitment/retention/turnover to resources needed to educate students have occurred. In nursing education, doing more with less is the norm (Houston et al., 2006). Related to the faculty shortage and at the same time, the urgency to minimize costs and maximize learning outcomes is renewed interest in the work life of existing nursing faculty members and the factors that influence their intent to stay within their organization. The work life of nursing faculty, beyond the commitment to provide quality education, involves service activities within the university and community; maintenance of clinical currency through clinical practice; and research endeavors that range from networking, research team development, and seeking funding support to conduct and publish research (Nir and Zilberstein-Levy, 2006). While the current study does not address the financial ramifications of the shortage, it helps to define the nature of the shortage from the perspectives of current faculty's work life, and it has implications for the recruitment and retention of future nursing faculty. It provides a national snapshot of the factors involved in nursing faculty's work life, perceived levels of support for that work, overall satisfaction with the job, and intent to stay in the academic organization. Background/Review of the Literature Work life is often referred to as workload. Workload in the academe generally consists of teaching, service, and research activities (Ellis, 2013). Workload may be calculated by estimating hours/week spent in any or all of these three areas. Calculations are usually based on a typical, 40-hour workweek. Kuntz (2012) interviewed faculty members and found that many were doing their work outside of the regular, 40-hour workweek. Nursing faculty typically works in excess of 50 h per week (Kaufman, 2007). In addition, workload does not account for productivity, which is increasingly required among faculty (Townsend and Rosser, 2007). Increasing workloads can be a source of faculty dissatisfaction. Kaufamn reported that nearly half of nursing faculty members are dissatisfied with their jobs and 25% are considering leaving. There are many factors that may affect work life. One of these is generational membership. The delay of retirements and the movement of younger people to academic positions have resulted in four generations in the workplace. Kyvik (2013) reported that younger people tend to spend less time on work tasks than older counterparts. Carver et al. (2011) reported that the concepts of organizational commitment and

581

generational differences are related and that evidence exists to support the claim that each generation–Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millenials–has unique organizational commitment profiles. For example, the Veterans were more likely to be committed to the academic organization because they see no other viable avenue or need to transition, likely due to the fact that they are nearing retirement (Carver et al., 2011). Using a nationally representative sample, Gutierrez et al. (2012) showed that perceived organizational support, developmental experiences, person–organization fit, and global job satisfaction positively predicted nursing faculty's organizational commitment to the academic organization. A similar study of 808 nursing faculty found evidence that factors such as more positive perceptions of: (1) nursing administration's support for faculty improvement; (2) perceptions of productivity; and (3) perceived teaching expertise significantly positively predicted faculty members' intent to stay in the role. Further, generational membership influenced faculty members' intent to stay or leave the faculty role (Candela et al., 2013). Another factor may be where the faculty member is in his or her academic career. Murray (2008) conducted a qualitative study of 14 university faculty members who were within their first three years of teaching and found themes related to feeling overwhelmed by the time requirements, not enough time for research, and lack of clarity about tenure requirements. Monk-Turner and Fogerty (2010) explored how a feeling of an unwelcoming, chilly work environment may affect faculty productivity. In a survey of 85 university sociology faculty, those who felt welcome and supported in their departments published more than their counterparts. Kuehn (2010) discussed the need for supportive work environments to increase nursing faculty retention. Perceived work stress and lack of support have been associated with an increased intent to leave the academic organization (Ryan et al., 2012). Beyond these factors, others have been discussed in the literature as influencing nursing faculty members' intent to stay in the academic organization. We detail these in the following sections. Productivity The research effort and productivity of faculty with regard to motivation, self-determination and self-efficacy were examined previously. Hardre et al. (2011) used online questionnaires to survey 781 nursing faculty members from 28 research-intensive universities across the academic disciplines of Humanities, Math and Science, Social Science and Languages, and Literature to determine predictors of faculty research effort and productivity. Among the findings, strong relations were noted in research effort and productivity and value for the research, departmental support, and research time. Previous research found that teaching load negatively predicted research productivity. Interestingly, the strongest predictor of research productivity was effort. This has implications for nursing administrators regarding faculty who persist in their research efforts through setbacks such as rejection of submitted manuscripts or unfunded grant submissions. Public acknowledgment and reward may positively influence a faculty member to continue in his or her research efforts. The pressing need for faculty to engage in scholarly activities and to be productive in those efforts led to a study by Chen et al. (2006) of business college faculty from 10 Carnegie Research Classification 2 universities. They used the Vroom (1964) Expectancy Theory of Motivation to examine faculty intention toward research, including investment factors (extrinsic motivation; e.g., tenure, promotion, higher salary) and consumption factors (intrinsic motivation; e.g., contributing to the knowledge base, personal satisfaction, peer recognition). A mailed survey yielded 320 responses (response rate of 48%) from tenure-track and tenured faculty. Findings revealed that there were strong associations between intrinsic and extrinsic investment factors and faculty research/scholarship. Moreover, the most valued rewards were tenure, promotion and salary increases. Interestingly, the actual number of

582

L. Candela et al. / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589

manuscripts published (or accepted) over the previous 2 years was significantly related to the amount of time given to faculty to conduct research. This is consistent with another study of 73 medical faculty who reported feeling fragmented and frustrated at the inability to have more protected time to conduct education scholarship (Zibrowski et al., 2008). The motivation to conduct research was the topic in a Taiwanese mail survey study of 1017 faculty (52% response rate) (Tien, 2000). The researcher examined motivation and lifetime publication record (including grants). They noted modifications to the expectancy theory with regard to valence and instrumentality as outcomes. More precisely, action to obtain a reward was labeled as a first level outcome (instrumentality) and getting promoted as a second level outcome (valence). Additional findings revealed those at associate professor level and under had significantly higher motivation toward promotion than full professors. Also, the higher the perceived level of satisfaction of curiosity, an intrinsic motivator, the more likely one was to publish. Intent to Leave In understanding the motivation of faculty to stay and excel in an academic organization, it is important to consider the factors that propel them to leave. Developing solid educational and research programs affect not only the quality and growth of programs but also local and national reputation, economic gain, and faculty longevity (Ryan et al., 2012). Faculty turnover intent was studied by Daly and Dee (2006) via an e-mail survey to 1500 faculty in 15 United States universities (response rate 51.2%). Using expectancy theory as a framework, the researchers examined the variables of role conflict, autonomy, communication openness, workload, and distributive justice in relation to faculty job satisfaction. They proposed that the satisfaction a faculty feels in his or her work would influence views on leaving the organization. They found role conflict, autonomy, communication openness and distributive justice had a significant effect on faculty intent to stay and that among these, communication openness had the strongest effect. The researchers concluded that organizational efforts be geared toward building open and supportive communication networks, providing more faculty autonomy, attention to assuring equity, and working with faculty to negotiate work expectations. Ryan et al. (2012) surveyed nearly 2904 faculty from a large, public university (response rate 37.4%) regarding intent to leave the organization. They found that increases in stress levels (measured by teaching load, salary, autonomy, opportunities to pursue research, develop career opportunities, and family life) were related to intent to leave. They found that high-producing research scholars were more likely to intend to leave the organization. This was postulated to be due, at least in part, to the appealing nature of other institutions competing to entice the scholar to join their organization. Structural workplace expectations were used in another study by Dee (2004), based on the expectancy theory framework to examine the intent to leave of 149 community college faculty. The survey concentrated on autonomy, support for innovation and communication openness. All factors had an effect on turnover intent (the higher the level of communication openness, for example, the lower the turnover intent). The most significant finding was organizational support for innovation. His conclusions include more opportunities for faculty in governance, curricular reform and inter-disciplinary intellectual communities, as well as greater communication between faculty and administrators and mentor programs. Job Satisfaction As noted above, job satisfaction has been used in studies focused on faculty intent to stay or leave academic organizations. Job satisfaction is a concept that is used in a multitude of studies of workers. In 2010, job satisfaction was the focus of a national study of 26,100 postsecondary faculty productivity in research, teaching and service. Mamiseishvili

and Rosser (2004) used the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) data set to acquire the sample. Both expectancy theory and self-determination theory were utilized as guiding frameworks. Study variables included productivity in teaching (e.g., number of credit hours taught, student contact hours, time on teaching), research (e.g., number of published articles, books, chapters, reports, and presentations over two years), and service (e.g., hours on unpaid tasks both inside and outside the organization, hours on administrative committees). Job satisfaction, benefits, and salaries were examined. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), the researchers determined that service and undergraduate teaching productivity was a significant negative predictor to job satisfaction, as was undergraduate and graduate teaching to research productivity. Conclusions pointed to the conflict and competition for time that faculty experience in the roles of teaching, service, and research as well as the need for organizations to carefully consider value systems regarding faculty expectations and reward structures. However, a limitation that was identified was the lack of inclusion of rewards as a mediator between productivity and job satisfaction. In another study, Bozeman and Gaughan (2011) surveyed 4916 tenure track and tenured professors from Carnegie research intensive universities regarding job satisfaction related to characteristics of work (e.g., hours spent on research and grant writing, research center affiliation, hours of undergraduate teaching, sense of pay equity, colleague interactions, and collaboration). They noted feeling that pay that was equitable was positively related to job satisfaction, as was center affiliation and work collaborations. As in the Mamiseishvili and Rosser (2004) study noted previously, number of hours teaching undergraduates was negatively related to job satisfaction. Recruitment, Retention, and Motivation to Stay A review of worker motivation and related theories (including Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg Two-Factor, Vroom Expectancy and Adam's Equity) was published by Latham and Ernst (2006) along with recommendations about motivating tomorrow's workforce. The authors note that motivating the future workforce requires that leaders continue to attend to what employees want and need to excel in the organization. They also emphasize the increasing role of virtual workplaces, worker teams, and how to motivate group cohesiveness and collaboration. The diverse nature of nursing faculty as well as the protracted educator shortage creates greater emphasis on recruitment and retention efforts. Falk (2007) outlined several strategies to create an appealing academic workplace aimed at retaining and working with aging nurse faculty. Among these are developing flexible workplace options, revisions of policies related to retirement, valuing and acknowledging faculty work, fostering job satisfaction, setting realistic expectations of the faculty role, promoting ongoing learning, improving salary and benefit options, and building opportunities for intergenerational faculty teaching and learning. Hessler and Ritchie (2006) focused specifically on recruiting and retaining novice nursing faculty. They argued for flexibility and offering rewards for work effort. Additionally, they recommended the need to foster socialization and collaboration, well-developed orientations, coordination of teaching assignments, allowing for mistakes, and providing solid support throughout. Baker (2010) also discussed nurse educator orientation programs used at a community college to promote nurse faculty retention in an empowering environment through use of a structured program, self-assessment surveys and the use of seasoned mentors. Retention of nursing faculty requires administrator attention to their needs regarding each of their roles in academia. Bartels (2007) looked at these roles through Boyer's (1990) dimensions of scholarship. The diverse and often seemingly competing roles of the scholarship of teaching, discovery, integration and application often create dissonance. Bartels suggested that academic nursing administration plan for the diversity and flexibility that faculty will

L. Candela et al. / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589

need to carry out roles by matching faculty needs, expertise and interests, new models of rewards, more professional development opportunities, and consolidation of the role through alignment of interests in teaching, research, and service. Bartels also noted the need to develop worker teams and support for collaborative efforts. Summary of the Review of the Literature The literature indicates that factors such as workload, stage of career development, generational membership, sense of feeling welcome and supported, perceptions of productivity, motivation, productivity, and perceived teaching expertise may affect job satisfaction as well as intentions to stay or leave the academic organization. The predominant system to determine faculty workload is based on a 40-hour/week model. This is not compatible with the 50 plus hours per week faculty spend on their teaching, research, and service activities. The nature of academic work and the hours devoted to it can be sources of higher stress levels among faculty, particularly if they do not feel supported in what they do. Theoretical Framework Informing the Study The theoretical framework used in this study was Vroom's Expectancy Theory of Motivation. In the 1995 book, Work and Motivation, Victor Vroom discussed the roots of his development of expectancy theory workplace motivation. Originally published in 1964, the 1995 version relates aspects of the Expectancy Theory of Motivation to published literature on workplace motivation and job performance. According to the theory, workers are motivated based on their sense of effort for performance and reward. Lunenburg (2011) succinctly described the four assumptions of the theory: 1) people come to organizations with expectations (which are influenced by needs, past experiences, and expectations), 2) people make conscious choices about their own behavior, 3) individuals want different things in the work place, and 4) people will ultimately make choices based on maximizing their own outcomes (pg. 1, 2). The three major variables related to these assumptions are expectancy (belief that a desired outcome is possible), instrumentality (belief that performance will lead to reward) and valence (perceived strength of the value one has toward a particular outcome) (Vroom, 1995). Vroom explored published literature relating to workplace motivation and performance. He related job satisfaction to the variable of valence. The more one values an outcome at work (e.g., recognition, promotion, salary increases, workload release time) the greater the job satisfaction will be. Additionally, Vroom reviewed research explaining job performance and the role of supervision, work groups, job content, promotional opportunities and wages. The Expectancy Theory of Motivation has been extensively detailed in the literature. It is explained as a cognitive theory to explain conscious choices that motivate one toward or away from a particular behavior (Vroom, 1995; Leadership-central.com, 2010). A cursory examination in Google Scholar revealed at least 50 pages of published descriptive and research-based articles related to the theory. Over the years, general criticisms have included the lack of focus on the potential negative effects of rewards for behavior (i.e. lack of salary incentives for underperformance in a job), no differentiation of various levels of effort, and even the simplicity of the theory (Leadership-central.com, 2010). Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of 77 of these studies. They examined studies that addressed at least one of the variables of expectancy, instrumentality, or valence to workrelated criteria, including preference, intention, choice, effort and performance. While slightly lower average relations were noted than previously reported, intention and preference were more strongly related to the theory propositions regarding motivation. Van Eerde and Thierry further noted methodological flaws in many studies that might be alleviated through different types of experimental designs.

583

Sloof and van Prang (2008) took the recommendations from Van Eerde and Thierry (1996) into consideration in designing an experimental study of 74 economics students in Amsterdam based on the Vroom theory and a leading, linear economic theory. Subjects completed a series of tasks on a computer in which effort and result over different quarters of a business period were tied to income. They did not find that the Vroom theory predicted effort more than the leading economic theory but acknowledged limitations, including the need to use more realistic sales representative tasks in the experiments. Survey research of 289 hotel workers yielded significant results in a study conducted by Chiang and Jang (2008)\. They measured expectancy (e.g., working hard will improve performance), extrinsic instrumentality (e.g., performing well will result in pay increases, promotion), intrinsic instrumentality (e.g., performing well will result in feeling more accomplished, feeling good about self), extrinsic valence (e.g., good salary, interesting work), intrinsic valence (e.g., more challenging work, personal growth and development), and work motivation (e.g., when motivated I am more willing to get involved, increase my productivity). The relations were examined using structural equation modeling (SEM). They noted significant associations between all factors to work motivation except extrinsic instrumentality. The researchers suggested implications for managers that included the provision of ongoing training, listening to employees, encouraging them to be involved, providing ongoing feedback and encouragement, and paying attention to career growth and advancement. The Present Study Given what the literature review uncovered regarding the many factors that influence nursing faculty's intent to stay in the academic organization, the purpose of the present investigation was to examine the predictive and explanatory power of several factors related to the work life of nursing faculty using a national sample via structural equation modeling (SEM), including: (1) perceptions of administration's support for faculty; (2) perceived teaching expertise; (3) generational membership; (4) perceptions of the equity and fairness of the promotion and tenure process; (5) perceptions of workload; and (6) perceptions of work satisfaction. The following research questions guided the conduct of this study: 1. To what extent do perceptions of administration's support for faculty, perceived teaching expertise, generational membership, perceptions of the equity and fairness of the promotion and tenure process, perceptions of workload, and perceptions of work satisfaction significantly and substantively predict nurse faculty members' intent to stay in the academic organization? 2. To what extent do perceived teaching expertise, perceptions of the equity and fairness of the promotion and tenure process, perceptions of workload, and perceptions of work satisfaction mediate the relation between perceptions of administration's support for faculty and intent to stay as well as generational membership and intent to stay? Predicated on the evidence found in the literature–especially the work of Candela and her colleagues (Candela et al., 2013; Carver et al., 2011; Gutierrez et al., 2012)–we hypothesized that all of the predictors in the first research question would have significant direct effects on intent to stay in the academic organization. Further, we expected that all of the hypothesized mediators in the second research question to partially mediate the relations between generational membership and intent to stay as well as between perceptions of administration's support for faculty and intent to stay. Although the present investigation is similar in some respects to previous work on this topic (see Candela et al., 2013; Carver et al., 2011; and Gutierrez et al., 2012), it differs significantly in some respects. It addresses these differences for each study separately. While Candela et al. (2013) explored these factors among nursing faculty, they examined

584

L. Candela et al. / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589

these factors using ordinary least squares regression and more traditional general linear modeling analyses—namely ANOVA. These analyses elucidated some of the relations investigated here but not using more sophisticated modeling techniques such as SEM. The Carver et al. (2011) study centered on examining the generational aspects of nursing faculty members' commitment to the academic organization whereas this study expands their work and explores other factors that go beyond generational membership and focus on intent to stay in the academic organization, not on organizational commitment. Finally, although Gutierrez et al. (2012) used SEM, the study focused on nursing faculty members' commitment to the academic organization and it used other latent variables as predictors not included in this study. Therefore, the current investigation, while building on the work of the aforementioned researchers, uniquely contributes to the literature on the work life of nursing faculty by examining relevant factors using SEM, which, according to a review of the literature, has not yet been identified in the extant literature.

(i.e., dean, director, chair, etc.), and influences on becoming, staying, or leaving the faculty role. Several of the items were adapted with permission from the National League for Nursing (NLN) Faculty Role Satisfaction Survey (DeBasio et al., 2005). The NFWLS consisted of a total of 16 unique subscales pertaining to the work environment of nursing faculty. All subscales were measured on a 3-, 4-, or 5-point Likert scale. However, only six of the scales were used in this study: (1) perceived teaching expertise; (2) perceptions of the fairness and equity of the promotion and tenure process; (3) perceptions of support from academic administration (i.e., dean, director, chair, etc.); (4) work satisfaction; (5) workload; and (6) intent to stay in the academic organization. Overall, the 6 scales demonstrated adequate reliability, with Cronbach's α coefficients ranging from 0.71 to 0.88. Table 1 contains the descriptive statistics and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α) for each scale respectively (see Candela et al., 2013, for a full list of items in the NFWLS). Procedures

Methods Description of the Research Design The study used a cross-sectional descriptive survey of a national sample of U.S. nursing faculty. Rather than selecting any of the several random sampling methods, the survey was sent to all nursing programs that met the inclusion criteria so to as maximize the representativeness of the sample and generalizability of the results. Additionally, given that the survey was delivered electronically, including the entire population of nursing programs that met the inclusion criteria (see below) was feasible. Moreover, very few studies utilize random sampling procedures, and even fewer attempt to collect population parameters (McNemar, 1947), thus increasing the methodological rigor of the present study. Participants and Sample Participants were 808 nursing faculty members in the United States (U.S.) who were employed at an academic institution accredited by either the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission (NLNAC) or the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE). Relevant academic institutions included those that conferred diplomas, Associate Degree Nursing (ADN), Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN), or graduate degrees in nursing. Academic institutions, whether public or private, which were not either NLNAC or CCNE accredited were excluded from the study. Participants' ages ranged from 24 to 76 years (M = 52.67, SD = 9.55). Generational membership was analyzed for the sample of nursing faculty. Of those who reported age, 42 (5.8%) belonged to the Veteran generation (1925–1945); 435 (53.9%) were from the Baby Boomer generation (1946–1960); 233 (28.9%) were from Generation X (1961–1980); and only 15 (1.9%) were from the Millennial generation (1981–2000). With respect to teaching experience, faculty reported teaching parttime from 0 to 35 years (M = 4.53, SD = 2.00) and 0 to 43 years fulltime (M = 11.38, SD = 9.61). Overall, faculty reported teaching in an average of 2.17 nursing programs throughout their careers. In terms of the type of nursing program in which teaching occurred, the average percent of time spent teaching was 92.33% in undergraduate prelicensure; 32.07% in RN-BSN; 42.51% in graduate Master of Science in Nursing (MSN); and 11.66% in nursing doctoral programs. Instruments The Nurse Faculty Work-Life Survey (NFWLS) is a 45-item instrument measuring various aspects of the work life of U.S. nursing faculty, including demographic items, teaching expertise, networking opportunities, workload, engagement in faculty activities, perceptions of productivity, perceptions of support from academic administration

Institutional review board approval was secured prior to commencement of the study. The final version of the NFWLS was entered in the SelectSurvey.net instrument management system. The names and email addresses of all administrators (i.e., deans, directors, and chairs) of NLNAC and CCNE accredited nursing programs were obtained through each organization's public information database of approved nursing programs. This information was transferred and amalgamated in an Excel spreadsheet. All records were meticulously checked and cross-checked to ascertain that no email address was duplicated, as some programs were accredited by both organizations. An email invitation was subsequently sent to all accredited nursing program administrators explaining the purpose of the study and eliciting their cooperation in disseminating the email to their program's faculty. An electronic link to the survey was included at the end of the email. Two weeks after the initial invitation, a follow-up email was sent to maximize participation. Data Analysis All data were screened via the International Business Machines (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics 19 software for univariate and multivariate outliers (see Tabachnick and Fidell, 2011). Furthermore, data were tested for univariate and multivariate assumptions, including multivariate normality (skewness and kurtosis), multicollinearity, and singularity, in order to proceed with maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. Regarding multivariate normality, the data demonstrated moderate kurtotis; hence, the ML robust (MLR) statistics were requested and interpreted in lieu of the ML normal distribution statistics. MLR procedures provide adjusted fit indices (e.g., S–B χ2, *CFI, *NNFI, *IFI, and *RMSEA and its *CI90%) that correct for moderateto-severe violations of multivariate normality. Additionally, MLR procedures adjust/correct standard errors and the statistical significance of the unstandardized path coefficients, taking into account multivariate non-normality (Kline, 2005). All other ML assumptions were met and no extreme outliers that would otherwise undermine the Table 1 Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients for the Nurse Faculty Work-Life Survey scales. Scale

M

SD

α

Perceived teaching Expertise Promotion and tenure Support from administration Workload Satisfaction Intent to stay

3.74 3.65 3.69 2.41 3.64 2.02

0.86 1.38 0.95 0.61 0.89 0.44

0.83 0.88 0.85 0.71 0.76 0.77

N = 808.

L. Candela et al. / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589

585

trustworthiness of the data were detected. The missing values analysis demonstrated that 151 cases (18.6%) had missing data, yielding 657 available cases for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed for all measures utilizing IBM SPSS19 software. The structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to explore the hypothesized relationships among the constructs in the present study. The hypothesized model was evaluated via the EQS 6.1 statistical software package (Bentler, 2005) by specifying the direct and indirect effects in the present data. First, these data were submitted to a standard confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine whether the specified observed variables (i.e., indicators of the latent constructs) were in fact products of the latent constructs. The overall model fit, the factor loadings, and the explained variance each factor contributed to its indicators were analyzed for this purpose. Next, the hypothesized full SEM model of Fig. 1 was evaluated for overall model fit as well as direct structural paths. The aforementioned adjusted goodness-of-fit indices and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) between the hypothesized model and a variance-only model were examined to ascertain if the proposed model fit the data. Finally, post-hoc (exploratory) respecification procedures–more specifically, the Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test for the addition of parameters and the Wald test for the deletion of parameters–were conducted on the model to improve its fit to the data and to more adequately represent the meaningful relationships among the constructs. All model respecifications were guided by theoretical considerations as well as the researchers' knowledge of the constructs.

Bentler–Bonett *NNFI = .83, Bollen's *IFI = .85, *CFI = .85, SRMR = .07, *RMSEA = .07, and its associated *CI90% = .07, .08. The LM test suggested that the addition of several error correlations within the IS, PSA, and P&T factors respectively was recommended for inclusion in the model. Because these error correlations made substantive theoretical sense, these parameters were included in the respecified measurement model (Kline, 2005). The final measurement model with the added error correlation parameters was exceptionally well-fitting, χ2 (299, N = 657) = 649.86, p b .0005, Bentler–Bonett *NNFI = .94, Bollen's *IFI = .95, *CFI = .95, SRMR = .05, *RMSEA = .04, and its associated *CI90% = .04, .05. All factor loadings were large and statistically significant at the p b .01 level of significance. Moreover, the variances explained (R2) by the factors on their respective indicators were all moderate to large, ranging from .25 to .82 (median = .52). The factor correlations, ranging from r = .20 to .75 for positive and r = −.09 to −.40 for negative, indicated that there were weak to strong relationships between the factors. Additionally, these correlations indicated that the constructs exhibited adequate discriminant validity (i.e., r b .90). Correlations among the error/unique variances imposed on the final measurement model were moderate-to-strong, positive and negative, and statistically significant (refer to Table 2 for information on the standardized and unstandardized factor loadings, R2 values, and error/unique variances for the final measurement model and refer to Table 3 for the factor correlation matrix). The structural relationships between the six factors were evaluated in the full SEM presented next.

Results

The Full SEM

Measurement Model

In order to ascertain the goodness of fit of the hypothesized structural model, the standard CFA model was respecified by imposing the structural relations among the factors (see Fig. 1). Generational membership (GM) was added as a categorical factor in this model to evaluate its influence on work life; thus the full SEM specified seven factors. The structural regression paths that represent the direct relationships were imposed and replaced the factor covariances among constructs. The respecified hypothesized full SEM model demonstrated good fit to the data, S–B χ2 (294, N = 657) = 608.41, p b .0005, *NNFI = .95, *IFI = .95, *CFI = .95, SRMR = .05, *RMSEA = .04, and its associated *CI90% = .04, .05. Subsequent inspection of the multivariate LM test

The measurement model specified six latent factors: perceived teaching expertise (PTE); perceived equity and fairness of the promotion and tenure process (P&T); perceptions of administration's support for faculty (PSA); satisfaction with work (SW); workload (WL); and intent to stay (IS). In addition, each indicator was allowed to load onto only its specified factor, the residual (error/unique variance) terms for the indicators remained uncorrelated, and no equality constraints were imposed on the loadings. The CFA demonstrated that the hypothesized measurement model was ill-fitting, S–B χ2 (310, N = 657) = 1335.15, p b .0005,

Fig. 1. Hypothesized full structural equation model (SEM). Key: PTE = perceived teaching expertise; P&T = perceived equity and fairness of the promotion and tenure process; PSA = perceptions of administration's support for faculty; SW = satisfaction with work; WL = workload; IS = intent to stay.

586

L. Candela et al. / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589

Table 2 Factor loadings, R2, and error variances of indicators of the final measurement model. ba

R2

Ei

Perceived teaching expertise (F1) PTE1 (V2) .84 PTE2 (V3) .80 PTE3 (V4) .84 PTE4 (V5) .49 PTE5 (V6) .50

1.04 1.01 1.04 .59 .54

.70 .64 .71 .25 .25

.30 .36 .29 .75 .75

Promotion & tenure (F2) P&T1 (V12) P&T2 (V13) P&T3 (V14)

.88 .88 .90

1.12 1.11 1.24

.77 .77 .80

.23 .23 .20

Support from administration (F3) PSA1 (V15) .79 PSA2 (V16) .72 PSA3 (V17) .77 PSA4 (V18) .63 PSA5 (V19) .59 PSA6 (V20) .53

.86 .93 .69 .82 .80 .80

.62 .52 .60 .40 .34 .28

.38 .48 .40 .60 .66 .72

β

Factor/indicator

Satisfaction with work (F4) SW1 (V21) SW2 (V22) SW3 (V23)

.52 .86 .90

.97 1.90 2.20

.27 .73 .82

.73 .27 .18

Workload (F5) WL1 (V24) WL2 (V25) WL3 (V26) WL4 (V27)

.58 .57 .57 .58

.69 1.00 .63 .70

.33 .33 .33 .34

.67 .67 .67 .66

Intent to stay (F6) IS1 (V7) IS2 (V8) IS3 (V9) IS4 (V10) IS5 (V11)

.50 .56 .59 .72 .62

1.01 1.48 1.60 1.44 1.24

.25 .32 .34 .52 .39

.75 .68 .66 .48 .61

Ei = error/unique variances. a Unstandardized factor loadings. All factor loadings are statistically significant, all p values b.01.

indicated that no additional structural changes were necessary. Conversely, the multivariate Wald test suggested the deletion of several structural paths that were not statistically significant. The lack of significance in these structural paths, however, necessitates further explanation (see Discussion below). Fig. 2 contains the final full SEM with all relevant structural path coefficients and Table 4 contains the explained variances (R2) and unstandardized structural coefficients of the final model. All structural regression coefficients presented in the final model (see Fig. 2) and all direct effects were reasonable as well as statistically significant, with the notable exceptions being GM to P&T, P&T to SW, and WL to SW, which were not significant. The magnitude of all significant direct structural paths ranged from weak to strong (Mdn = .33). PSA was observed to have significant direct effects on P&T, SW, and IS. Table 3 Zero-order correlation matrix of factors for the full structural equation model.

1. PTE 2. P&T 3. PSA 4. SW 5. WL 6. IS

1

2

3

4

5

6

–

.21⁎ –

.20⁎ .27⁎ –

.39⁎⁎ .19⁎ .75⁎⁎ –

.48⁎⁎ −.34⁎⁎ .26⁎ −.44⁎⁎ –

.38⁎⁎ −.09 .38⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ −.35⁎⁎ –

N = 657. Key: PTE = perceived teaching expertise; P&T = perceived equity and fairness of the promotion and tenure process; PSA = perceptions of administration's support for faculty; SW = satisfaction with work; WL = workload; IS = intent to stay. ⁎ p b .05 (2-tailed). ⁎⁎ p b .01 (2-tailed).

GM's direct effects on PTE and IS were statistically significant, although its direct effect on P&T was not significant (p N .05). Next, PTE was observed to have significant direct effects on SW and IS. P&T had significant direct effects only on WL but not on SW. WL was shown to have only a significant direct effect on PTE but not SW. Finally, SW was shown to have a significant direct effect of IS. As the focus of this study was to deepen the understanding of factors influencing intent to stay in the academic organization, indirect effects on intent to stay were also examined. P&T was found to have a significant indirect effect on IS (β = .05, p b .05, mediated by WL and SW). The indirect effect of WL on IS was also significant (β = .12, p b .05, mediated by SW). PSA also had a significant indirect effect on IS via SW (β = − .15, p b .05). Finally, GM had a significant indirect effect on IS (β = −.05, p b .05, mediated by PTE and SW). In terms of effect sizes (R2): WL and GM explained 26% of the variance in PTE; PSA and GM contributed 14% of the variance in P&T; PSA, PTE, WL, and P&T accounted for 59% of the variance in SW; 12% of the variance in WL was accounted by P&T; and, finally, PSA, PTE, SW, and GM contributed 39% of the variance in IS. In sum, with extremely well-fitting goodness of fit indices (*NNFI = .95, *IFI = .95, *CFI = .95), and low residuals (SRMR = .05, *RMSEA = .04, and its associated CI90% = .04, .05), combined with the significant parameter estimates as well as the parsimony of the model, the final SEM was considered an excellent fit to the present data. Discussion The large, national sample of nursing faculty members in the United States provided several insights regarding their work lives. Most striking was the effect of perceived administrator support on faculty satisfaction with work and intent to stay. The theme of administrator support can be found in the literature. Kukla-Acevedo (2009) examined the data of 2294 K-12 teachers and found that increased levels of administrator support were associated with fewer teachers leaving the organization. Our findings also support a series of studies involving the same population of U.S. nurse faculty members. For instance, Carver et al. (2011) found that perceived support from administration increased nurse faculty members' affective commitment to and their overall job satisfaction in the academic organization. Moreover, Gutierrez et al. (2012) demonstrated in their SEM that more positive perceptions from administration led to more positive work values and productivity. Perceived administrator support also influenced promotion and tenure; which was influenced by workload. Academic administrators typically assign faculty workload. This directly affects the amount of time a faculty member has to engage in research activities. Research has shown that more equitable distribution of work across academic rank–that is, assistant, associate, or full professors–predicted more positive work perceptions and productivity, regardless of academic rank (Candela et al., 2013). Workload was noted to strongly influence perceived teaching expertise, which, in turn significantly influenced intent to stay. Ryan et al. (2012) found that an increase in faculty stress, due to factors such as teaching workload and dealing with unprepared students also increased their intent to leave the organization. In most cases, teaching comprises the majority of the faculty assigned workload. Robust positive predictive power was noted among perceived teaching expertise and satisfaction with work and intent to stay. This was an unexpected finding but one that could be linked to both the Vroom theory and existing research. Of the three variables comprising the Expectancy Theory of Motivation, valence is closely associated with the value or worth a person places on a particular outcome, such as teaching expertise, the greater the satisfaction and, ultimately, desire to remain in the organization (Vroom, 1995). Chang et al. (2010) found that a positive relationship existed between perceived teaching support and faculty perception of teaching efficacy. Self-efficacy (including beliefs about abilities to assist students with their learning) and level of

L. Candela et al. / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589

587

Fig. 2. Final full structural equation model (SEM). Model structural coefficients with asterisks (*) are significant at the p b .05 level and those with double asterisks (**) are significant at the p b .01 level of significance. Dashed structural paths were not statistically significant. Key: PTE = perceived teaching expertise; P&T = perceived equity and fairness of the promotion and tenure process; PSA = perceptions of administration's support for faculty; SW = satisfaction with work; WL = workload; IS = intent to stay.

organizational commitment were also noted to be significant in a study by Bogler and Somech (2004) of 983 middle school teachers. Vroom's Expectancy Theory of Motivation was evident in the findings with regard to intent to stay. Faculty, who felt they had administrator support, were satisfied with their work, and felt they were good at their teaching indicated a higher intent to stay within the organization. This supports previous research done on this and similar topics (e.g., Candela et al., 2013; Carver et al., 2011; Gutierrez et al., 2012). The statistically non-significant structural paths in Fig. 2 necessitate additional discussion. Against our expectations, generational membership failed to directly predict nurse faculty members' perceptions of the fairness and transparency of the promotion and tenure process. Evidently, older and younger faculty perceive the promotion and tenure process similarly, contradicting research done by Carver et al. (2011) and Candela et al. (2013), who reported that younger faculty (i.e., untenured on tenure track) tended to view the promotion and tenure process as more relevant. Given this finding, we expected generational membership to negatively predict nurse faculty members' perceptions of the fairness and transparency of the promotion and tenure process, substantively indicating that younger faculty perceived this to be more important than older faculty. Likewise, nurse faculty members' perceptions of the fairness and transparency of the promotion and tenure process as well as workload did not predict faculty members' satisfaction with work, as initially hypothesized. This lack of predictive power of these two latent variables with respect to work satisfaction is contrary to previous research that found that more positive perceptions of promotion and lower workloads positively influenced perceptions of global job satisfaction (Carver et al., 2011). We caution the reader that the lack of statistical significance of these structural paths is not likely due to lack of statistical power, as our sample size was rather large, even for SEM analyses. Future research is needed to validate our proposed SEM with other samples of U.S. nursing faculty members and samples of nursing faculty from other countries. Such research would help clarify some of the reasons behind the lack of statistical significance among these specific structural paths, as the literature points to their importance and relevance to nurses generally (e.g., Carver et al., 2011; Gutierrez et al., 2012) and nursing faculty members specifically (e.g., Candela et al., 2013).

Implications for Practice The connection between workload and perceived teaching expertise highlights the need for faculty to have meaningful time to develop, deliver, and evaluate their courses. The workload calculation that is currently utilized in most universities does not accurately reflect the amount of effort and reflective thinking time that goes into teaching. This is especially true, as the pools of students coming to higher education grow increasingly diverse. Faculty members are under pressure to move increasing numbers of students through the curriculum so that they can pass the NCLEX-RN and enter practice. Learner diversity with regard to age, ethnicity, gender, work and family situations, values, and previous learning experiences requires additional time to consider innovative teaching strategies and different ways to communicate with students (Mangold, 2007). The time for a more reflective teaching practice may result in improved learner outcomes and greater faculty self-efficacy. As noted in the current study, faculty who feel a greater sense of teaching expertise are more likely to be satisfied and less likely to leave their jobs. Vroom (1995) recognized this relationship as a logical prediction involving an employee score on a test, purported to measure job performance, being related to job satisfaction. Faculty are generally evaluated on their teaching from one or more perspectives, such as those gained from student, peer and supervisor evaluations of teaching. These usual types of evaluations provide feedback to faculty on their teaching performance and may add or detract from a sense of teaching ability and expertise, which may affect higher or lower levels of overall job satisfaction and, ultimately desire to stay or leave an institution. However, development of self in the faculty teaching role requires considerable time and reflection on the part of the faculty member. Book (1995) agreed that this “thought time” is seldom considered in faculty workload. Thus, it becomes administrators' responsibility to lobby for additional faculty workload release to devote to refining teaching methods and tie requests to improving student outcomes and increasing faculty job satisfaction and retention. The demands for nursing faculty to conduct research are very time consuming. This should be considered by administrators in the calculation of faculty workload. Administrators must take active roles in overcoming barriers to research productivity, such as lack of mentorship, lack of funds for pilot studies, lack of research support start-up funds,

588

L. Candela et al. / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589

Despite these limitations, we believe that the present study offers new insights to scientific investigations regarding the role of the academic context/environment in predicting nursing faculty members' intent to stay in the academic organization, and thus, represents a unique contribution to the literature.

Table 4 Variances (R2) and unstandardized coefficients of final full SEM. Factor/indicator

R2

Perceived teaching expertise (F1) PTE1 (V2) PTE2 (V3) PTE3 (V4) PTE4 (V5) PTE5 (V6)

.69 .63 .73 .25 .25

Promotion & tenure (F2) P&T1 (V12) P&T2 (V13) P&T3 (V14)

.77 .77 .80

Support from administration (F3) PSA1 (V15) PSA2 (V16) PSA3 (V17) PSA4 (V18) PSA5 (V19) PSA6 (V20)

.62 .52 .59 .40 .34 .28

Satisfaction with work (F4) SW1 (V21) SW2 (V22) SW3 (V23) Workload (F5) WL1 (V24) WL2 (V25) WL3 (V26) WL4 (V27) Intent to stay (F6) IS1 (V7) IS2 (V8) IS3 (V9) IS4 (V10) IS5 (V11)

Conclusions There have been few studies in the nursing literature that have utilized a national sample, and even fewer studies explore relations among latent variables using SEM, a more sophisticated statistical technique. By including a nationally representative sample of U.S. nursing faculty, our study's findings more readily generalize to a variety of different institutional climates. Vroom's Expectancy Theory of Motivation has been the basis of numerous research studies, including those related to faculty members. However, it has not been applied to explain nursing faculty work life and factors that may be associated with intent to leave the organization. The use of the theory, particularly with regard to the concept of valence, provided a logical method to conceptualize both the factors included on the instrument and the findings it yielded. Faculty's engagement in the activities associated with teaching, research, and service provides something back that is of value. This, then, makes these activities extremely important in order to gain that valued outcome. It is therefore essential for nursing academic administrators to understand what it is in these activity areas that is valued by faculty members and the way they perceive the various factors common to the academic environment. It is critical because increasing intent to stay, and thus, decreasing turnover, saves the academic organization thousands of dollars in faculty development by maintaining qualified experts in the academic unit. On the other side of the coin, it provides faculty members greater insight into the academic context, thus better informing their decision-making process regarding the direction of their professional careers.

.26 .73 .82 .34 .32 .33 .35

.25 .32 .35 .51 .38

ba F1 = F5, F7 F2 = F3, F7 F4 = F1, F2, F3, F5 F5 = F2 F6 = F1, F3, F4, F7

.70, −.42 .32, −.12 −.15, .01, .36, −.05 .15 .17, .16, −.11, −.07

.26 .14 .59 .12 .39

Key: F7 = generational membership. a Unstandardized structural coefficients.

and lack of the research support infrastructure within the organization (Briar-Lawson et al., 2008). Faculty cannot be expected to generate new knowledge, advance the future of the nursing profession and health care, and further the organization's research mission without this vital support. It is a critical time in nursing education. The need for nurses to provide highly skilled, quality care for patients and move healthcare forward is imperative. Understanding the work life of dedicated nursing faculty is prerequisite to supporting them in their efforts to prepare tomorrow's nurses and to generate much-needed research.

Limitations As with any research involving survey data with human participants, our national sample of nursing faculty members may not adequately reflect the true magnitude of the actual effects among the latent variables in our model. Thus, other, modified proposed models may more accurately display observed effects among the constructs under investigation. Moreover, the correlational, non-experimental nature of our data limits the types of inferences and conclusions we can draw from such data. Thus, it is important that the results of this study be interpreted only in terms of the latent variables examined and operationalized as the manifest variables used to measure the constructs.

References American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), 2014. Nursing faculty shortage. Retrieved from. http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media-relations/fact-sheets/nursingfaculty-shortage. Bartels, J.E., 2007. Preparing nursing faculty for baccalaureate-level and graduate-level nursing programs: role preparation for the academy. J. Nurs. Educ. 46 (4), 154–158. Bentler, P.M., 2005. EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA. Bogler, R., Somech, A., 2004. Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers' organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teach. Teach. Educ. 20, 277–289. Boyer, E.L., 1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, New York. Bozeman, B., Gaughan, M., 2011. Job satisfaction among university faculty: individual, work and institutional determinants. J. High. Educ. 82 (2), 154–186. Briar-Lawson, K., Korr, W., White, B., Vroom, P., Zabora, J., Middleton, J., Shank, B., Schatz, M., 2008. Advancing administrative support for research development. Soc. Work. Res. 32 (4), 236–241. Candela, L., Gutierrez, A., Keating, S., 2013. A national survey examining the professional work life of today's nursing faculty. Nurse Educ. Today 33 (8), 10–16. Carver, L., Candela, L., Gutierrez, A.P., 2011. Survey of generational aspects of nurse faculty organizational commitment. Nurs. Outlook 59, 137–148. Chang, T., McKeachie, W., Lia, V., 2010. Faculty perceptions of teaching support and teaching efficacy in Taiwan. High. Educ. 59, 207–220. Chen, Y., Gupta, A., Hoshower, L., 2006. Factors that motivate business faculty to conduct research: an expectancy theory analysis. J. Educ. Bus. 81 (4), 179–188. Daly, C.J., Dee, J.R., 2006. Greener pastures: faculty turnover intent in urban public universities. J. High. Educ. 77 (5), 776–803. Dee, J.R., 2004. Turnover intent in an urban community college: strategies for faculty retention. Community Coll. J. Res. Pract. 28 (7), 593–607. DeBasio, N.O., Jensen, D.B., Kippenbrock, T.A., Montgomery, K.S., Sharts-Hopko, N., Siler, B., Adwan, J., 2005. A national study of faculty role satisfaction. National League for Nursing Publications, New York. Ellis, P.A., 2013. A comparison of policies on nurse faculty workload in the United States. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 34 (5), 303–309. Falk, N.L., 2007. Strategies to enhance retention and effective utilization of aging nurse faculty. J. Nurs. Educ. 46 (4), 165–169. Gutierrez, A.P., Candela, L.L., Carver, L., 2012. The structural relationships between organizational commitment, global job satisfaction, developmental experiences, work values, organizational support, and person–organization fit among nursing faculty. J. Adv. Nurs. 68, 1601–1614.

L. Candela et al. / Nurse Education Today 35 (2015) 580–589 Hardre, P.L., Beesley, A.D., Miller, R.L., Pace, T.M., 2011. Faculty motivation to do research: across disciplines in research-extensive universities. J. Professoriate 5 (1), 35–69. Hessler, K., Ritchie, H., 2006. Recruitment and retention of novice faculty. J. Nurs. Educ. 45 (5), 150–154. Houston, D., Meyer, L.H., Paewai, S., 2006. Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: expectations and values in academe. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 28, 17–30. Kaufman, K., 2007. More findings from the NLN/Carnegie national survey: how nurse educators spend their time. Nurs. Educ. Perspect. 28 (5), 296. Kline, R., 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. The Guilford Press, New York. Kowalski, K., Kelley, B.M., 2013. What's the ROI for resolving the nursing faculty shortage? Nurs. Econ. 31 (2), 70–76. Kuehn, M.B., 2010. Creating a healthy work environment for nursing faculty. Creat. Nursing 16 (4), 193–197. Kukla-Acevedo, S., 2009. Do teacher characteristics matter? New results on the effects of teacher preparation on student achievement. Economics of Education Review 28 (1), 49–57. Kuntz, A.M., 2012. Reconsidering the workplace: faculty perceptions of their work and working environments. Stud. High. Educ. 37 (7), 769–782. Kyvik, S., 2013. Academic workload and working time: retrospective perceptions versus time-series data. High. Educ. Q. 67, 2–14. Latham, G.P., Ernst, C.T., 2006. Keys to motivating tomorrow's workforce. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 16, 181–198. Leadership-central.com, 2010. Expectancy theory of motivation—Victor Vroom. Retrieved from. http://www.leadership-central.com/expectancy-theory-ofmotivation.html#axzz3HL2WDYh5. Leveille, D.E., 2006. Accountability in higher education: a public agenda for trust and cultural change. Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved form. http://www. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED503070.pdf. Lunenburg, F.C., 2011. Expectancy theory of motivation: motivating by altering expectations. Int. J. Manag. Bus. Adm. 15, 1–6.

589

Mamiseishvili, K., Rosser, V.J., 2004. Examining the relationship between faculty productivity and job satisfaction. J. Professoriate 5 (2), 100–132. Mangold, K., 2007. Educating a new generation: teaching baby boomer faculty about millennial students. Nurse Educ. 32, 21–23. Monk-Turner, E., Fogerty, R., 2010. Chilly environments, stratification, and productivity differences. Am. Sociol. J. 41, 3–18. Murray, J.P., 2008. New faculty m embers' perceptions of the academic work life. J. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 17 (1/2), 107–128. Nir, A.E., Zilberstein-Levy, R., 2006. Planning for academic excellence tenure and professional considerations. Stud. High. Educ. 31 (5), 537–554. Ryan, J.F., Healy, R., Sullivan, J., 2012. Oh, won't you stay? Predictors of faculty intent to leave a public university. High. Educ. 63, 421–437. Sharp, M.D., Komives, S.R., Fincher, J., 2011. Learning outcomes in academic disciplines: identifying common ground. J. Stud. Aff. Res. Pract. 48 (4), 481–504. Sloof, R., van Prang, M., 2008. Performance measurement, expectancy and agency theory: an experimental study. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 67, 794–809. Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2011. Cleaning up your act: Screening data prior to analysis. Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.) pp. 60–116 New York. Tien, F.F., 2000. To what degree doe the desire for promotion motivate faculty to perform research? Testing the expectancy theory. Res. High. Educ. 41 (6), 723–752. Townsend, B.K., Rosser, V.J., 2007. Workload issues and measures of faculty productivity. Thought Action 23, 7–19. Van Eerde, W., Thierry, H., 1996. Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 81 (5), 575–586. Vroom, V., 1964. Work and Motivation. Wiley, New York. Vroom, V.H., 1995. Work and Motivation. Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Zibrowski, E.M., Weston, W.W., Goldsmith, M.A., 2008. ‘I don't have time’: issues of fragmentation, prioritization and motivation for education scholarship among medical faculty. Med. Educ. 42, 872–878.