Search

This paper considers how work psychologists define 'good' qualitative research in the work psychology domain. In addressing the assessment of quality in work psychology research, we draw on 22 in-depth interviews with work psychologists about their current practices and expectations around qualitative research. Using narrative analysis, the various plots and narratives that constitute how interviewees understand good qualitative research are identified. The implications of the use of these narratives for both how quality is understood and the use of qualitative research in this area are addressed. Drawing on Weick's concept of sensemaking as a theoretical framework, it is argued that the narratives identified enable the construction of a hegemonic understanding of what is good methodological practice within the work psychology discipline. The implications of this for the work psychology field and the methodological practices of work psychologists are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Objective: A descriptive, nonexperimental study of community/public health nurses' (C/PHN) perceptions of their work and their workplace was conducted for the purpose of identifying factors that may affect tenure intention and, by extension, health care delivery, at a time when nursing workforce capacity is in crisis, a subject not studied well among the C/PHN workforce. It was thought that findings would potentially contribute to decisions about curriculum development, hiring practices, and work design by nurse educators, leaders, and administrators. Spreitzer's Theory of Structural and Psychological Empowerment and Meyer and Allen's Commitment theory were utilized together as a framework. Design and Sample: A paper-pen survey was mailed to 688 C/PHNs in 10 states seeking national accreditation serving in community-oriented and population-focused roles and selected randomly in local health departments with a census of 10 or more eligible nurses. The return of 478 completed surveys yielded a response rate of 76%. Measures: Data were examined with descriptive statistics, correlation, and multiple logistic regression methods. Results: Results revealed 1/3 of C/PHNs were in some way considering leaving the job in spite of significant relationships among empowerment factors and between empowerment and commitment factors. Conclusions: These data beg for a clearer understanding of C/PHNs' perceptions of empowerment and the reasons for intent to leave. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we sought to evaluate a modification of the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test designed to include problems associated with other drug abuse/dependence besides alcohol. Scores of the lifetime Michigan Assessment-Screening Test/Alcohol-Drug (MAST/AD) were compared to other lifetime measures of substance abuse and dependence and to psychiatric scales reflecting current or recent symptoms. Two university medical centers with alcohol-drug programs located within departments of psychiatry hosted 520 patients with alcohol-drug-related diagnoses. Patients completed their own MAST/AD using a paper-and-pencil format. Based on interviews with the patient, a research associate rated the patients' substance-related problems on the Minnesota Substance Abuse Problem Scale (M-SAPS) and obtained information on lifetime treatment for substance abuse. An addictions psychiatrist determined abuse or dependence and made a current diagnosis of alcohol abuse/dependence only, drug abuse/dependence only, and alcohol plus drug abuse/dependence. The MAST/AD was highly correlated with the M-SAPS and several other measures of substance abuse morbidity. Patients with alcohol-only and drug-only diagnoses did not differ from one another on the MAST/AD, although both groups had lower scores than those with alcohol plus drug diagnoses. Current psychosocial morbidity as assessed by the patient and the psychiatrist was associated with the MAST/AD, although less strongly than with lifetime substance abuse measures. The lifetime MAST/AD demonstrates reliability as a severity measure for alcohol and/or drug abuse. With minor modification, this standard measure can be expanded from alcohol diagnoses to all substance diagnoses. This study in a clinical population did not demonstrate its utility as a screening instrument; additional work is needed to reveal its utility for this purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]