【摘要】：研究目的:構(gòu)建護(hù)理管理者的非權(quán)力影響力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系,提高護(hù)理管理質(zhì)量、護(hù)理服務(wù)水平,促進(jìn)醫(yī)院整體發(fā)展。研究方法:(1)文獻(xiàn)回顧法、深度訪(fǎng)談法、開(kāi)放式問(wèn)卷調(diào)查法:初步擬定護(hù)理管理者非權(quán)力影響力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系基本框架。(2)德?tīng)柗茖?zhuān)家咨詢(xún)法:通過(guò)兩輪專(zhuān)家咨詢(xún),基本確定護(hù)理管理者非權(quán)力影響力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系。(3)問(wèn)卷調(diào)查法:根據(jù)構(gòu)建的護(hù)理管理者非權(quán)力影響力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系編制調(diào)查問(wèn)卷,對(duì)某三甲醫(yī)院的護(hù)理管理者進(jìn)行實(shí)測(cè),檢驗(yàn)指標(biāo)體系的信效度。研究結(jié)果:1.兩輪專(zhuān)家咨詢(xún)統(tǒng)計(jì)結(jié)果顯示,問(wèn)卷的有效回收率均為96.67%,專(zhuān)家參與課題研究的積極性高;專(zhuān)家的群體權(quán)威程度系數(shù)為0.878,專(zhuān)家有良好的權(quán)威性;兩輪專(zhuān)家咨詢(xún)一級(jí)指標(biāo)協(xié)調(diào)系數(shù)分別是0.162、0.249(P0.05),二級(jí)指標(biāo)協(xié)調(diào)系數(shù)分別是0.161、0.248(P0.05),三級(jí)指標(biāo)協(xié)調(diào)系數(shù)分別為0.191、0.205(P0.05),可見(jiàn)第二輪咨詢(xún)專(zhuān)家協(xié)調(diào)系數(shù)均高于第一輪,且研究結(jié)果可靠,說(shuō)明專(zhuān)家意見(jiàn)一致性較高。初步構(gòu)建的護(hù)理管理者非權(quán)力影響力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系包含3個(gè)一級(jí)指標(biāo)、6個(gè)二級(jí)指標(biāo)、27個(gè)三級(jí)指標(biāo)。2.確定了各級(jí)指標(biāo)的權(quán)重,一級(jí)指標(biāo):品質(zhì)0.6232,能力0.1373,情感0.2395。二級(jí)指標(biāo):品德0.3116,素質(zhì)0.3116,人際交往能力0.1030,護(hù)理管理能力0.0340,關(guān)懷體恤下屬0.1916,建立和諧關(guān)系0.0479。部分三級(jí)指標(biāo):誠(chéng)信0.0464,正直0.0352,公正0.0602,寬容0.0602,責(zé)任心0.0830。3.對(duì)護(hù)理管理者非權(quán)力影響力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系進(jìn)行實(shí)測(cè),SPSS17.0軟件分析結(jié)果顯示,評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)整體的克朗巴赫α系數(shù)為0.959,一級(jí)指標(biāo)的克朗巴赫α系數(shù)介于0.830~0.950之間,二級(jí)指標(biāo)的克朗巴赫α系數(shù)介于0.737~0.938,說(shuō)明指標(biāo)體系信度較高;量表水平的內(nèi)容效度指數(shù)(S-CVI)為0.87,條目水平的內(nèi)容效度指數(shù)(I-CVI)介于0.62~1;探索性因子分析得到6個(gè)因子,KMO值為0.823,x2=3209.954,P=0.000,各因子的載荷范圍是0.53~0.87,指標(biāo)體系內(nèi)容效度,結(jié)構(gòu)效度良好。研究結(jié)論:1.初步構(gòu)建了護(hù)理管理者非權(quán)力影響力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系,包含3個(gè)一級(jí)指標(biāo)、6個(gè)二級(jí)指標(biāo)以及27個(gè)三級(jí)指標(biāo),確定了各級(jí)指標(biāo)的權(quán)重及具體的指標(biāo)內(nèi)涵。2.經(jīng)過(guò)驗(yàn)證性問(wèn)卷調(diào)查,研究結(jié)果顯示該評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系信效度良好,較可靠。
[Abstract]:Objective: to construct the evaluation index system of non-power influence of nursing managers, improve the quality of nursing management, nursing service level, and promote the overall development of hospitals. Methods: (1) Literature review method, in-depth interview method, open questionnaire survey method: the basic framework of evaluation index system of nursing managers' non-power influence was drawn up preliminarily. (2) Delphi expert consultation method: through two rounds of expert consultation. (3) questionnaire survey method: according to the established evaluation index system of non-power influence of nursing managers, the questionnaire was compiled, and the nursing managers in a third class hospital were measured. Test the reliability and validity of the index system. The result of the study was: 1. The results of two rounds of expert consultation statistics show that the effective recovery rate of the questionnaire is 96.67, the enthusiasm of experts to participate in the research is high, the group authority coefficient of experts is 0.878, and the experts have good authority. The coordination coefficient of two rounds of expert consultation was 0.162 ~ 0.249 (P0.05), the coordination coefficient of second-level index was 0.161 ~ 0.248 (P0.05), and the coordination coefficient of third-level index was 0.191 ~ 0.205 (P0.05), respectively. The coordination coefficient of the second round of expert consultation was higher than that of the first round, and the results of the study were reliable. Explain expert opinion consistency is high. The evaluation index system of non-power influence of nursing managers consists of 3 primary indexes, 6 secondary indexes and 27 third-level indexes. Determined the weight of indicators at all levels, the first level of indicators: quality 0.6232, ability 0.1373, emotion 0.2395. The second grade index: moral character 0.3116, quality 0.3116, interpersonal ability 0.1030, nursing management ability 0.0340, caring compassionate subordinates 0.1916, establishing harmonious relationship 0.0479. Some tertiary indicators: good faith 0.0464, integrity 0.0352, justice 0.0602, tolerance 0.0602, responsibility 0.0830.3. The results of SPSS 17.0 software analysis on the evaluation index system of non-power influence of nursing managers showed that the overall Cronbach 偽 coefficient of the evaluation index was 0.959, and the Cronbach 偽 coefficient of the first grade index was between 0.830 and 0.950. The 偽 coefficient of the second class index was between 0.737 and 0.938, which indicated that the reliability of the index system was high. The content validity index (S-CVI) of the scale level was 0.87, and the content validity index (I-CVI) of the item level was between 0.62 and 1, and the exploratory factor analysis showed that the six factors were 0.823 X 2C320 9.954P0. 000, and the load range of each factor was 0.53 ~ 0.87. The content validity and structural validity of the index system were good. Conclusion: 1. The evaluation index system of non-power influence of nursing managers was preliminarily constructed, including 3 first-grade indexes, 6 second-class indexes and 27 third-level indexes. The weight of each level index and the specific index connotation were determined. 2. The results showed that the reliability and validity of the evaluation index system was good and reliable.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山西醫(yī)科大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：R47

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李梁;楊楠;任紅;李微;;德?tīng)柗品?gòu)建臨床護(hù)理人員人文關(guān)懷能力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系[J];護(hù)理研究;2016年27期

2 丁小麗;;護(hù)士長(zhǎng)非權(quán)力影響在急診護(hù)理質(zhì)量管理中的應(yīng)用[J];中醫(yī)藥管理雜志;2016年01期

3 伍琳;孫艷杰;;德?tīng)柗品ê?jiǎn)介及在護(hù)理學(xué)中的應(yīng)用現(xiàn)狀[J];護(hù)理研究;2015年29期

4 唐慧玲;;公民服從的理論探討[J];社會(huì)科學(xué);2015年04期

5 方梅英;董匯群;;增強(qiáng)護(hù)士長(zhǎng)非權(quán)力影響力對(duì)護(hù)理優(yōu)質(zhì)服務(wù)的影響[J];當(dāng)代護(hù)士(中旬刊);2013年10期

6 張彥彥;;護(hù)理管理工作中的非權(quán)力影響因素分析[J];內(nèi)蒙古中醫(yī)藥;2013年26期

7 高生軍;;試論領(lǐng)導(dǎo)影響力[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2013年15期

8 林蔚;李曉生;李誠(chéng);蔣志林;陳銳;史長(zhǎng)偉;郝傳輝;王紅霞;;基于A(yíng)HP的水泥粉磨站清潔生產(chǎn)評(píng)價(jià)體系指標(biāo)權(quán)重的研究[J];齊齊哈爾大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(自然科學(xué)版);2013年02期

9 姚劍峰;楊德利;;基于A(yíng)HP模型的海洋高新技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)化影響因素研究——以海水利用業(yè)為例[J];科技與經(jīng)濟(jì);2012年06期

10 胡德英;劉義蘭;方鵬騫;許娟;;護(hù)理柔性管理的利與弊分析[J];中國(guó)臨床護(hù)理;2012年06期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 王飛霞;護(hù)理碩士研究生自我管理學(xué)習(xí)現(xiàn)狀研究[D];山西醫(yī)科大學(xué);2016年

2 李俐;護(hù)理部主任勝任力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系的構(gòu)建[D];山西醫(yī)科大學(xué);2016年

3 高超;護(hù)理部主任領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力評(píng)價(jià)指標(biāo)體系的構(gòu)建[D];山西醫(yī)科大學(xué);2016年

4 楊晴;HL公司業(yè)績(jī)?cè)u(píng)價(jià)體系研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2015年

5 王菁華;國(guó)有建筑企業(yè)ECC集團(tuán)多元化績(jī)效評(píng)價(jià)研究[D];東南大學(xué);2015年

6 劉棘;黑龍江省五常市農(nóng)戶(hù)生活質(zhì)量評(píng)價(jià)及制約因素研究[D];東北農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué);2013年

7 曹蔚;高校計(jì)算機(jī)雙語(yǔ)教學(xué)質(zhì)量評(píng)價(jià)體系的探索與實(shí)踐[D];西南交通大學(xué);2013年

8 常玉蘭;三級(jí)醫(yī)院護(hù)理管理崗位勝任力指標(biāo)體系初步構(gòu)建的研究[D];新鄉(xiāng)醫(yī)學(xué)院;2013年

9 劉菊;沈陽(yáng)地鐵運(yùn)營(yíng)安全評(píng)價(jià)體系研究[D];東北大學(xué);2011年

10 張文芳;高校輔導(dǎo)員就業(yè)指導(dǎo)素質(zhì)測(cè)評(píng)問(wèn)卷的初步編制[D];西北大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2232635